Cablevision Suing Viacom Over Cable Bundling

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.

Comments

reluctant?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:reluctant?

[TheGratefulNet]

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.

From a Legal Standpoint

[Mythosopher]

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.

Re:What about program-specific a-la-carte?

[Qzukk]

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