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

[Midwayman]

Have you noticed how pay subscription channels don't have reality shows? Shit, maybe that IS the way we need to go. I'd gladly lose every reality show ever for one or two more shows of Game of Thrones' quality.

I gladly loose them all for one show with a plot regardless of quality. Oh who am I kidding? I'd love to see them gone period.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

PBS? Is that a joke, or are you just stupid?

Cartoon and ComCentral would be expensive, but there is no way they'd go away.

C-SPAN is a non-profit that charges 6 cents per subscriber. It probably wouldn't go away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-SPAN

History, Science, Discovery, A&E, and NatGeo are all pretty terrible.

I love it when people make my arguments for me. Stupid, that's it.:\

 

[Newbian]

Game of Thrones and Dexter are on pay subscription channels already, so a la carte pricing wouldn't affect them. I haven't seen any of the other shows you mentioned, although I am interested in catching up with Breaking Bad.

Have you noticed how pay subscription channels don't have reality shows? Shit, maybe that IS the way we need to go. I'd gladly lose every reality show ever for one or two more shows of Game of Thrones' quality.

The problem is the insane cost for the channels some of them are on.

Such as Game of Thrones was the most pirated show of 2012 and there is a reason because of the cost for HBO especially when they have nothing else.

 

[lxskllr]

Such as Game of Thrones was the most pirated show of 2012 and there is a reason because of the cost for HBO especially when they have nothing else.

Yup. If they charged a low price for streaming the shows people want, they'd make plenty of money, and eliminate a lot of the copyright infringement. They may or may not make as much money doing that, but they'll pay for the shows, and make a nice profit. The purpose of copyright isn't the maximization of profit.

 

[Rakehellion]

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.

Not really. You can't have a cable network if you don't have the channels people DO want.

 

[Rakehellion]

Speaking of Cablevision, I have internet service with them. I gave them my phone number so they could arrange for me to be home for the installation, now they call me on the phone every week trying to sell me a cable package.

I don't want cable TV.

Fuck them to death.

 

[Phoenix86]

So.... if Cablevision wins, can consumers sue them for bundling channels they don't want and use the same arguments their lawyers used to win the fight against viacom? :hmm:

 

[halik]

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

Did this earlier last year.

 

[IronWing]

There are channels no one wants? I figure people would watch The Ice Maker Channel if it came down to it.

 

[Ichinisan]

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.

How many channels do you currently have and how much do you pay?

 

[wirednuts]

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.

its called IPTV and it is damn close to having its own networks. well, netflix technically is now since they are making their own shows.

 

[JimKiler]

No, it will incentivize them to do the most cost-effective programming; something cheap to produce that still generates a broad base of viewership. You know, reality shows. No actors to pay, no writers to pay, none of the overhead that comes with having sets to maintain, and people will gobble that shit up regardless. We'll end up with nothing but reality shows 24/7, Honey Boo Boo on every channel, all the time always. Hooray for choice!

Come to think of it, that's pretty much all TV is now.

Agreed

Maybe Idiocracy will come true and we will all watch "Ouch, My Balls" in the future. A show relegated to kicking people in the nuts for humor.

 

[ch33zw1z]

dropped cable down to basic three years ago, and haven't looked back. We keep basic around because internet is cheaper like that, no coax plugged into anything though...just the modem 🙂

I refuse to pay the amount of money they want for the 1 or 2 channels we would watch..

 

[preslove]

I love it when people make my arguments for me. Stupid, that's it.:\

Either it was a joke or you are just being an ignorant asshole. PBS doesn't get any money from cable companies. They are must carry, like any other network stations:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry

In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates this area of business and public policy.[1] These rules were upheld in a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1997 in the case Turner Broadcasting v. FCC (95-992). The United States was the first country to implement a must-carry scheme.

Although cable TV service providers routinely carried local affiliates of the major broadcast networks, independent stations and affiliates of minor networks were sometimes not carried, on the premise it would allow cable providers to instead carry non-local programming which they felt would attract more customers to their service.

Many cable operators were also equity owners in these cable channels, especially TCI, then the nation's largest multiple system operator (MSO), and had moved to replace local channels with equity-owned programming (at the time, TCI held a large stake in Discovery Communications). This pressure was especially strong on cable systems with limited bandwidth for channels.

The smaller local broadcasters argued that by hampering their access to this increasing segment of the local television audience, this posed a threat to the viability of free-to-view broadcast television, which they argued was a worthy public good.

Local broadcast stations also argued cable systems were attempting to serve as a "gatekeeper" in competing unfairly for advertising revenue. Some affiliates of major networks also feared that non-local affiliates might negotiate to provide television programming to local cable services to expand their advertising market, taking away this audience from local stations, with similar negative impact on free broadcast television.

Although cable providers argued that such regulation would impose an undue burden on their flexibility in selecting which services would be most appealing to their customers, the current "must-carry" rules were enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1992 (via the Cable Television Protection and Competition Act), and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rules in rejecting the arguments of the cable industry and programmers in the majority decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy. That decision also held that MSOs were functioning as a vertically integrated monopoly.

A side effect of the must-carry rules is that broadcast networks cannot charge the cable TV companies license fees for the program content retransmitted on the cable network, except potentially as a part of retransmission consent agreements in lieu of must-carry.