Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Television The Courts United States

Cablevision Suing Viacom Over Cable Bundling 138

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cablevision Suing Viacom Over Cable Bundling

Comments Filter:
  • reluctant? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 02, 2013 @12:23AM (#43052165)

    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? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @01:06AM (#43052375)

    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.

  • Re:reluctant? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by maxdread ( 1769548 ) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @01:07AM (#43052379)

    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.

  • Re:reluctant? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by I'm New Around Here ( 1154723 ) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @02:10AM (#43052557)

    They probably use Hulu, Netflix, and other pay-as-you-watch services. At least for the good stuff.

    My wife and daughter download shows they like from the free sites. And as far as I can tell, it isn't worth the time except for a few shows they really like that aren't available in the US. My wife likes the British murder mystery shows, and my daughter watches animes. Other than that, when we had no TV service and piggybacked on our neighbor's wifi* (with permission), actually watching American shows was an ordeal of downloading hell.

    .
    .
    *Note: Thank god I previewed this before posting. Instead of typing 'wifi' I accidentally typed 'wife'. Changes the whole meaning of the complaint.

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Working...