Cablevision sues Viacom for forcing it to pay for channels no one wants

[techs]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/26/4032058/cablevision-sues-viacom-for-bundling-programming

Cablevision sues Viacom for forcing it to pay for channels no one wants

Cablevision today filed a federal lawsuit against Viacom, claiming that the media company has forced it to pay for "14 lesser-watched ancillary networks its customers do not want" in order to keep popular channels like MTV, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon in its lineup.

The suit calls out Palladia, MTV Hits and VH1 Classic as just a few of these undesirable networks and claims that Viacom has "abused its market power" to coerce the cable provider into carrying the channels. "Viacom's conduct harms Cablevision and its customers," reads a press release announcing the legal front. Cablevision asserts that Viacom's program bundling violates federal antitrust laws. It's asking the court to establish a permanent injunction "barring Viacom from conditioning carriage of any or all of its core networks on Cablevision's licensing any or all of Viacom's ancillary networks."



Define "irony"

 

[BoomerD]

good luck with that...Even though I agree that many of the channels are unwatched by MOST, Cablevision still has the option to refuse to buy ANY programming from Viacom.

 

[John Connor]

VH1 classic? Never heard of it before. I don't much care for music of today and VH1 and MTV has gone to crap.

 

[drebo]

Maybe this will be the first step toward à la carte programming. Then again, probably not.

I'd gladly pay $2-$5 each per month for the 10 channels I'm actually interested in. I refuse, however, to pay $60 per month for 200 channels of which I only have interest in 10.

 

[Ronstang]

I forgot how many hundreds of channels I have but I do know one thing, only about a dozen are worth watching. We are all getting screwed no matter what service we use to watch TV.

 

[pyonir]

Good. The prices go up, the service gets worse and the channels get shittier. Something has to change sooner or later.

 

[Acanthus]

It is kind of funny that an industry known for creating local monopolies is suing for anti-competitive practices.

 

[benzylic]

So if Viacom loses they charge more for the channels people do want and throw the undesirable ones in for free. End result monthly bill goes up or stays the same, it almost certainly won't go down

 

[Dari]

Clash of the titans.

 

[zerocool84]

good luck with that...Even though I agree that many of the channels are unwatched by MOST, Cablevision still has the option to refuse to buy ANY programming from Viacom.

And then no one uses Cablevision.

 

[postmortemIA]

Content providers and cable companies can have each other, and watch both having less and less customers.

 

[John Connor]

Maybe this will be the first step toward à la carte programming. Then again, probably not.

I'd gladly pay $2-$5 each per month for the 10 channels I'm actually interested in. I refuse, however, to pay $60 per month for 200 channels of which I only have interest in 10.

They tried to pass a bill in Congress for a la carte and it failed.

I forgot how many hundreds of channels I have but I do know one thing, only about a dozen are worth watching. We are all getting screwed no matter what service we use to watch TV.

Yeah, I have hundreds of channels and only watch 4 of them. Same 2 in the weekday and 2 others on the weekend. I can't downgrade because the damn channels I watch are "premium" channels.

I have Comcrap BTW...

 

[BUTCH1]

These mega-rich company's just funnel tons of $$ come election time then hire former gov. employee's as "advisers" that head up "PAC'S", (political action committees). Joe-six-pack takes it up the ass again, surprised?..

 

[Pardus]

I cancelled cable tv over a year ago, the cable boxes are total crap as well as the programming. Rather use netflix and hulu.

 

[Shadowknight]

Cablevision still has the option to refuse to buy ANY programming from Viacom.

True, but every time a provider has tried to ditch Viacom or raised the possibility of not agreeing to a rate increase, Viacom starts campaigns to have the public mass call the cable/satellite operator to carry their channels again.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_momsatwork/2008/12/viacoms-weeping.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/directv-drops-viacom-channels_n_1665197.html

 

[Vdubchaos]

Umm, Cablevision Forces their customers to pay for channels that no one wants.

You don't even know how many times I've tried to get just the channels I want over their "packages" they force down your throat.

If they win, I'm suing them.

 

[Jimzz]

So if Viacom loses they charge more for the channels people do want and throw the undesirable ones in for free. End result monthly bill goes up or stays the same, it almost certainly won't go down

Still cost money to carry a channel, even "free". The shopping channels pay to have their channel carried.

So if viewer ship is low on the "free" channels they can still be dropped.

I cancelled cable tv over a year ago, the cable boxes are total crap as well as the programming. Rather use netflix and hulu.

Yep Over the Air Digital TV is all I have and internet.

 

[Genx87]

Maybe this will be the first step toward à la carte programming. Then again, probably not.

I'd gladly pay $2-$5 each per month for the 10 channels I'm actually interested in. I refuse, however, to pay $60 per month for 200 channels of which I only have interest in 10.

Unfortunately I dont think carte service will happen until something like Intels IPTV takes off. But even then the content providers may still force bundles on us.

 

[piasabird]

This is the whole concept behind Cable TV. Doesnt everyone pay for channels they dont want? Cut the Cable Live on the Internet.

 

[Newbian]

Ehhh it sucks but it's their property so they can sell it how they like and if a business doesn't like it they can stop paying for it and then get harassed by their customers.

 

[Craig234]

That's kind of like refusing to go to a buffet because they have things you don't want, even though you'd be happy to pay the same price for ones you do want alone.

 

[preslove]

good luck with that...Even though I agree that many of the channels are unwatched by MOST, Cablevision still has the option to refuse to buy ANY programming from Viacom.

This is just dumb. There are 7 main content providers that provide the lion's share of tv programming. Refusing to offer any of these companies would be a death sentence to a cable company. This is why oligopolies are bad.

This is why I pirate television without guilt. There is no such thing as a free market for television. Television is a hopelessly corrupt and anti-consumer.

 

[DesiPower]

Conception of Alacarte on demand internet TV channel!!! can't wait... hit me with adds all over the place, but please give me the option...

 

[JimKiler]

Umm, Cablevision Forces their customers to pay for channels that no one wants.

You don't even know how many times I've tried to get just the channels I want over their "packages" they force down your throat.

If they win, I'm suing them.

You don't think the content providers force that into the contracts with cable companies? I don't think Cablevision has much choice, getting onto a cable system is not enough, you need to be on the package everyone gets otherwise no one will pay extra unless you are HBO and Showtime.

 

[lxskllr]

That's kind of like refusing to go to a buffet because they have things you don't want, even though you'd be happy to pay the same price for ones you do want alone.

No, it's more like paying $50 for access to the salad bar you won't eat when you only want the $5 chicken.