Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cablevision Suing Viacom Over Cable Bundling

Posted by timothy on from the but-the-m-comes-with-the-tv dept.

aws910 points to an L.A. Times article which explains that "Cablevision (a huge cable network) is suing Viacom (owner of MTV, Nickelodeon, etc), alleging that Viacom is violating U.S. federal anti-trust laws by requiring programming packages to be bundled. If they are victorious, it would be a tiny step closer to 'a la carte cable,' but not much — Cablevision just wants to make their own bundles, and not give the customer the freedom to choose which channels they get. Where can I get my "Kill your TV" bumper sticker?" The thing I care more about buying separately is no-TV internet service, which the major cable companies seem reluctant to admit is even possible.

24 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. reluctant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    i've lived in 3 different cable markets and they've offered internet only service for quite some time. they generally charge you a bit more, but it's still offered. same with naked dsl.

    1. Re:reluctant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They offer it, but it's more expensive than if you accept at least basic cable service as well.

      Suggesting that they offer cable only is a bit disingenuous as you have to know about it and pay more for less.

    2. Re:reluctant? by Pubstar · · Score: 2

      I have TWC, and my internet charge is the same if I have a bundle with TV or not. Then again, I'm paying for the highest tier connection they offer. It's been that way for at least 2 years now.

    3. Re:reluctant? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      my younger friends (in their 20's) not only don't have POTS phone service anymore (its all cell phones) but they don't subscribe to tv packages, either. they get a data connection, they download what they want and that's that.

      there's a VERY limited time window where traditional phone and cable can still make a come-back.

      but my dollars are not on them. they can sell to old guys but I'm betting that sales to the new generation are nearly null.

      I'm happy to see the old business models die. its a bit of cosmic justice or pay-back, if you will.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:reluctant? by maxdread · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure I can find a single instance where getting TV+Internet is cheaper than just internet.

      None of them are reluctant and you can find the option for internet only from each provider I checked.

    5. Re:reluctant? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      my younger friends (in their 20's) not only don't have POTS phone service anymore (its all cell phones) but they don't subscribe to tv packages, either. they get a data connection, they download what they want and that's that.

      Do they pay for the content they download? If not, in 20 years, when those 20 somethings are 40 somethings, who is going to generate the content?

    6. Re:reluctant? by nabsltd · · Score: 2

      my younger friends (in their 20's) not only don't have POTS phone service anymore (its all cell phones) but they don't subscribe to tv packages, either. they get a data connection, they download what they want and that's that.

      I keep hearing this sort of thing, and if it were true, the ratings for live shows (sports, award shows, etc.) should be dropping dramatically as those are the shows where downloading isn't really an option.

      But the Super Bowl and this year's Golden Globe and Academy Awards telecasts show that not only are audiences not getting smaller, but they are also getting younger.

    7. Re:reluctant? by Arker · · Score: 2

      It's hardly limited to 20 somethings, I am about twice that age and have data only, never in my life paid for tv. I would consider it if they would turn off the ads, but as long as they want me to pay them to deliver my eyeballs to their advertisers it isnt even tempting.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    8. Re:reluctant? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      I'm happy to see the old business models die. its a bit of cosmic justice or pay-back, if you will.

      If only it were - at 90% gross margin and nearly zero capital investment in the future it is the cablecos turned ISPs that are getting even richer on the new business models.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    9. Re:reluctant? by Thesis · · Score: 2

      My family and I have never cared about watching the Academy Awards, the Emmy Awards, or any other such awards show for many years. A late freind of mine actually won an Emmy (he did audio work), and even he didn't think much of it. He laughed when I asked him about it years ago. He told me that they gave him the thing on stage, then when he went off stage they took it from him, and said it would cost him $300 to keep the statuette. He always laughed about that, but myself and others who knew him did as well, for the thing is made cheap, and his broke. I have always seen the award shows as a self masturbatory act, and he even agreed.

    10. Re:reluctant? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They probably use Hulu, Netflix, and other pay-as-you-watch services. At least for the good stuff.

      My wife and daughter download shows they like from the free sites. And as far as I can tell, it isn't worth the time except for a few shows they really like that aren't available in the US. My wife likes the British murder mystery shows, and my daughter watches animes. Other than that, when we had no TV service and piggybacked on our neighbor's wifi* (with permission), actually watching American shows was an ordeal of downloading hell.

      .
      .
      *Note: Thank god I previewed this before posting. Instead of typing 'wifi' I accidentally typed 'wife'. Changes the whole meaning of the complaint.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    11. Re:reluctant? by PNutts · · Score: 2

      I have Comcast Internet and basic cable. Basic cable costs me $15/month. If I cancelled it and went with Internet only, my Internet price would go up $15/month. Since the cost is the same for those two options I obviously included basic cable.

    12. Re:reluctant? by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Do they pay for the content they download? If not, in 20 years, when those 20 somethings are 40 somethings, who is going to generate the content?

      Everyone, if current trends continue. We're already at the point where the best stuff in most franchises are produced by fans, with the "official" content serving mostly as a seed to get things started; and are currently seeing a shift where textual fan-made content is increasingly supplemented by videos, music, etc due to the increasing quality of tools at Joe Average's disposal. Add the entirely original settings (such as Orion's Arm) made possible by the community-building power of the Internet, and it seems likely that in 20 years the so-called Big Content will be both dead and unmourned.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    13. Re:reluctant? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

      I asked my cable company if the rate I pay for internet would rise any if I dropped cable TV. The answer was no, I'd still pay $32 for internet (50mbit/10mbit) just like I currently do.

      I'm wanting to do it, but other people in the house still watch news channels. (I've moved them all over to sickbeard/couchpotato combined with xbmc, which they like much better. I wouldn't have done it if my cable provider wasn't CCI flagging every single channel.) So for now I am on the minimum tier possible for news channels in digital, which after the cable cards runs me $35 a month. Total bill is about $68 a month after FCC fees. Not bad considering that through them, I have access to all TV content I want, including full blu-ray releases before they even hit store shelves.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    14. Re:reluctant? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I'm saving about a dollar a month, but I suppose that's better than giving them a dollar a month for no good reason. (Haven't even turned the tv on in over half a year)

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  2. This is a real problem. by olsmeister · · Score: 2

    Do you have any idea how many people pay for ESPN (the most expensive cable channel) that never watch ESPN? Why? (Hint: It's owned by Disney.)

  3. What about program-specific a-la-carte? by mark-t · · Score: 2

    Instead of getting an entire channel, what if you just subscribed to individual programs, delivered to your set-top box each week, waiting for you to watch them at your convenience?

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:What about program-specific a-la-carte? by cffrost · · Score: 2

      Instead of getting an entire channel, what if you just subscribed to individual programs, delivered to your set-top box each week, waiting for you to watch them at your convenience?

      The two BitTorrent clients I've used (Vuze and uTorrent) both support this, provided "set-top box" means computer, or something like one of the combination media-player/NAS units Western Digital offers.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    2. Re:What about program-specific a-la-carte? by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ohhh, you didn't want to pay for the parts you weren't watching? Well, that'll be another $120/mo in processing fees.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  4. From a Legal Standpoint by Mythosopher · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not sure how this would be any different from the recent SCOTUS decision Brantley v. NBC Universal, 675 F.3d 1192 (2012). The Court held that selling high demand and low demand channels together in packages to consumers did not injure competition and therefore violate US antitrust law.

  5. Don't want to be a dumb pipe... by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2

    That's why you see the deals like HBO GO where you have to be a subscriber to access. Even Hulu has gone this route to appease the media interest and now you have Comcast, a provider, also in the content business.

    At the same time Netflix is getting into the content business.

    The last thing the cable companies want to happen is for HBO to realize that, "Hey people might pay us $15 a month to watch HBO online without the cable fee."

    Honestly, if MLB.tv didn't blackout the local games both me and my father would ditch cable TV.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    1. Re:Don't want to be a dumb pipe... by rhsanborn · · Score: 2

      HBO knows that people would pay them directly. HBO has said as much. HBO also knows that it has the largest sales force in the country and it doesn't have to pay them. Every cable and satellite provider is selling HBO. If HBO decided to start selling on it's own, those cable and satellite partners wouldn't have the same incentive to keep pushing HBO in their packages. HBO has decided they get more money from the current arrangement.

  6. So.... by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    A monopoly that is screwing its customers is mad that a somewhat competitive group is able to make it include ALL of its stuff.

    Makes sense to me.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  7. Re:A la carte wouldn't save you anything by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

    So, you pay $30 a month for a set of channels and watch 5 of them, with a couple you might occasionally have a look at.

    Instead there's an a la carte option. Now, the cable company knows that you're willing to pay $30 a month for those 5 channels. Why would they not simply charge you $6 each?

    Not only that, but all the lesser channels are starting to get some of the "prime" programming now. If you carefully observe what the stations are doing, they're evolving for the a la carte option - putting top ranked shows across the entire network, so you can't buy just one, but you have to buy them all. Maybe after a year the last season will make its way to the other channels with ads to buy the original channel, but the stations are evolving their programming.

    What was once all consolidated on one main channel and 2-3 weaker channels often showing reruns and older material has devolved into all channels showing top-tier stuff and lowly reruns. Now you're not just buying History Channel, but History and H2, with little overlap in programming.