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.

7 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 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."
    3. 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.

    4. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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.