Cablevision Files Antitrust Suit Against Viacom For Forced Bundling Of Crappy TV Channels
from the when-big-companies-fight dept
For many, many years there have been disputes between cable TV providers and the TV companies over what channels the cable (and satellite) guys need to provide. The TV companies often "bundle" smaller channels that don't get many viewers along with the popular "must have" channels. Part of their argument is that this allows those smaller channels to exist in the first place, as they'd be economically nonviable without the subsidy from the super popular channels. Of course, the cable/satellite providers (and many consumers) argue that this is waste, pure and simple, and it means higher bills. It appears that Cablevision is finally trying to do something about this, and has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Viacom for forcing it to carry the channels it doesn't like, specifically channels like Palladia, MTV Hits and VH1 Classic. Cablevision has to carry those if it wants the channels that people actually watch, like MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.Oddly, we can't show you the full lawsuit, because it's been filed under seal. You see that sometimes when it involves contractual disputes, since the terms in the contract are secret. However, it's rather unfortunate that they couldn't file the document with the secret stuff redacted. At this time, we just have Cablevision's side of the story via their press announcement. The key argument is that this is an illegal "tying" arrangement. Of course, just last year we had a ruling in a similar lawsuit, in which cable customers filed a similar suit, which flopped in court.
Cablevision may have a difficult time making this claim succeed as well. As Viacom quickly pointed out in response, the bundling is not "forced." Pay TV companies can choose individual channels without other channels, it's just that the price is higher. So, they argue, the bundling actually leads to discounts. Whether or not anyone actually believes that claim may become a key question in the lawsuit. If I had to do an initial handicapping, though, I'd guess that Viacom wins this one, even if Cablevision can make Viacom (and others) sweat for a bit. In the long run, however, this is still about fighting the last battle. The idea of TV channels is an increasingly obsolete concept. This fight is over the way video content was distributed. Not the way it will be distributed in the future.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, bundling, cable channels, tying
Companies: cablevision, viacom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nonsense. It's a fight about how content is currently distributed. How many million subscribers are there? Why ignore reality, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
more like two billion but who's counting. Down from $4 billion in 2008. EBITDA margins have been cut in half over the same period.
pretty good trajectory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I detest Fox and their backward thinking (can't FF thru ads OnDemand - which I fecking pay for, btw - amongst other anti-viewer crap). But I love Justified on FX.
I only know of the channel because that's how it's set up to find these shows. Otherwise, I could give a damn. Advertise it and show me where to find it, who cares what "channel", means nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Customers Can Always Walk
I chose nothing, canceled my account with them, and haven't gone back. Not to them, or any other source with the power to try and force content down my throat against my will. When I want to watch a movie, my brother gets it via Netflix and DVD.
It's entirely possible that Cablevision filed the suit because their customer base may well have started doing as I have done. Unless strangled by a bought government, where no competition exists in the commercial arena, it WILL arise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then maybe they shouldn't, um, exist in the first place?
Or is there something super-obvious I'm missing here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In my opinion the only real subsidies that should be handed out should go do stimulate decent competition or things that are necessary (agriculture comes to mind).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm going to go seek for a blog on that subject, hopefully I'll find one as interesting as TechDirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We'd get everything that makes sense, probably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elephant in the room
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've had it with crappy programming, humor dumbed down to the lowest common denominator (you know it's bad when they have to use canned laughter to tell you where the punch like is), programming that serves merely as a vehicle to give you commercials (that I absolutely hate), and get you to pay for it on top of that.
Honestly I've been without one by choice for so long, there's nothing to miss on the tv. With the net if there is something I wish to see, it's readily available, within the time frame I wish, and I can find it without commercials.
Maybe mainstream hasn't caught up to that yet, hey I'm good with that, but sooner or later, it's coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I like most about Youtube content is that it is not victem to the timeslot wars that TV stations go through. Most of my favourite shows from the past few years have been cancelled after only a season or two, because they were underpromoted by the parent station and were given timeslots that competed against far more popular programs that have been repeating themselves ever since the third episode...
We are to late to save the likes of Firefly, or The Cape, or Loonatics Unleashed, but a new future is dawning, and only we can make it better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My middlemen of culture post (quite acidic): http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130224/22344422088/why-does-entertainment-industr y-insist-that-it-can-veto-any-innovation-it-doesnt-like.shtml#c795
Cutting the (cable) cord is becoming a popular option as the Internet enters mainstream use. (comment #2) I think both of you can be correct at the same time) current cable use still makes cramcast (and the like) a lot of money but its good they offer Internet connections for future business viability. It would be wise if the bandwidth and band-volume (download volume. Nice to separate that isn't it?) increased but I suspect overt manipulation of band-volume to force one side or the other.
Want to say smart TV channels will adapt but because of the band-volume limits will (for now) want to put up an antenna for local content. Cable has always been a false promise to me (they said there would be no commercials. Hahaha) Although I do miss MythBusters.
Firefly was a loss... and wow does TV/Cable programming battles for time slots constituent shooting themselves in the figurative foot(s)? (thanks #19)
For my part... Go, GO Cablevision. Yayyyyy. (waves 'individual choice' flags)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think in the future you'll have only on demand content with a few advertisements along via your internet connection. How the current cable tvs will deal with it to survive is to be seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a real nowhere man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]