Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


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

Cablevision Suing Viacom Over Cable Bundling 138

Posted by timothy from the but-the-m-comes-with-the-tv dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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 More

Cablevision Suing Viacom Over Cable Bundling

Comments Filter:

  • reluctant? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01, 2013 @11:23PM (#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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They offer it, but it's more expensive than if you accept at least basic cable service as well.

      Suggesting that they offer cable only is a bit disingenuous as you have to know about it and pay more for less.

      • Yeah, I had to get their most basic cable package (didn't even include CSPAN!) to get a small discount on Internet service. But recently the rates changed and it would've been more expensive to also have TV service, so I canceled it. I have rabbit ears and almost never watch TV so it's no trouble.

        • I have TWC, and my internet charge is the same if I have a bundle with TV or not. Then again, I'm paying for the highest tier connection they offer. It's been that way for at least 2 years now.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by PNutts ( 199112 )

          I have Comcast Internet and basic cable. Basic cable costs me $15/month. If I cancelled it and went with Internet only, my Internet price would go up $15/month. Since the cost is the same for those two options I obviously included basic cable.

          • Yeah, I'm saving about a dollar a month, but I suppose that's better than giving them a dollar a month for no good reason. (Haven't even turned the tv on in over half a year)

            • They will call you and tell you that you can get a lot more for less money than you are now paying. Of course that is only for the first year and the second year will only be a little bit more than you are paying now. The third year you will be paying a lot more than you are paying now. They hope you will become dependent on those extra services by then and will not do anything about it. For the same price charter would have charged me, I can get magic jack for my land line, netflix and hulu plus for t

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

        by maxdread ( 1769548 ) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @12:07AM (#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: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I'm not sure I can find a single instance where getting TV+Internet is cheaper than just internet.

          When I had 20/5 mbit FIOS in my apartment last year, it was $79.99 for internet + TV and $84.99 for the bare internet alone. Since the HD box was $5, both options effectively cost the same. If I didn't rent the box (i.e. just used the free verizon SD DTV adapter) then the Internet + TV would indeed be cheaper than the Internet alone!

          In a twist from bizzaro land, I now have the Verizon 150/65 at my house and THEY WILL NOT BUNDLE TV with it. If you add TV to the plan, the price jumps by about $70. Howeve

        • Virgin in the UK, when I signed up, but that was a special case: Introductory half-price offer on the bundle. Once the offer period runs out (6 months, IIRC) the price doubles.

        • I think GP meant that you get a bundle discount if you get something with the internet.

          In my case you just get charged a premium if you go without phone or cable.

      • I asked my cable company if the rate I pay for internet would rise any if I dropped cable TV. The answer was no, I'd still pay $32 for internet (50mbit/10mbit) just like I currently do.

        I'm wanting to do it, but other people in the house still watch news channels. (I've moved them all over to sickbeard/couchpotato combined with xbmc, which they like much better. I wouldn't have done it if my cable provider wasn't CCI flagging every single channel.) So for now I am on the minimum tier possible for news channe

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:reluctant? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @12:06AM (#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, Insightful)

          by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @12:14AM (#43052399)

          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.

          Do they pay for the content they download? If not, in 20 years, when those 20 somethings are 40 somethings, who is going to generate the content?

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by I'm New Around Here ( 1154723 )

            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 or

          • Do they pay for the content they download? If not, in 20 years, when those 20 somethings are 40 somethings, who is going to generate the content?

            China [nytimes.com] will [nytimes.com]. It's already producing censored news in the U.S. and "giving away" dispatches to struggling stations in Africa. When the local media disappear, China steps in with a friendly, wealthy hand.

          • Do they pay for the content they download? If not, in 20 years, when those 20 somethings are 40 somethings, who is going to generate the content?

            Everyone, if current trends continue. We're already at the point where the best stuff in most franchises are produced by fans, with the "official" content serving mostly as a seed to get things started; and are currently seeing a shift where textual fan-made content is increasingly supplemented by videos, music, etc due to the increasing quality of tools at Joe Av

            • Add the entirely original settings (such as Orion's Arm)

              Er, not exactly entirely original. Orion's Arm was originally heavily derivative of Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep, going so far as to include references to Blight, Zones of Thought, and Skroderiders. Skroderiders and the Zones of Thought were discarded early on, but the concept of a Blight is still present in Orion's Arm and is still substantially similar to Vernor Vinge's idea. The history page on the Orion's Arm site does acknowledge Vernor Vinge and A Fire Upon the Deep by name, though it glosse

          • Netflix, hulu, amazon video, itunes, history channel .com, comedy central .com, etc.

            There are plenty of ways to get content legally for prices that are tiny compared to what the cable companies or direct tv offer. I only have an internet package and then pay for netflix and occasionally use the free hulu. My girlfriend has itunes and amazon video and we don't miss tv.

            People have no problem paying for content; It is the extra $50 to $100 a month plus commercials that many don't see worth whatever extra value

            • Netflix, hulu, amazon video, itunes, history channel .com, comedy central .com, etc.
              â¦..
              People have no problem paying for content; It is the extra $50 to $100 a month plus commercials that many don't see worth whatever extra value they provide over the above services.

              That's ironic, since hulu and the web pages you mention have commercials that are WORSE than on cable, since you can't skip them with a DVR. (Even if you do site blocking, don't you still have to WAIT 30 seconds?)

              Even though I watch

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

            I don't always pay, but not by choice. HBO won't take my money.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by unitron ( 5733 )

              I don't always pay, but not by choice. HBO won't take my money.

              Does your money have cooties? Is it Nazi war loot? Businesses usually like money, and they usually prefer more money to less money. What do they find so offputting about yours?

        • 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.

          I keep hearing this sort of thing, and if it were true, the ratings for live shows (sports, award shows, etc.) should be dropping dramatically as those are the shows where downloading isn't really an option.

          But the Super Bowl and this year's Golden Globe and Academy Awards telecasts show that not only are audiences not getting smaller, but they are also getting younger.

          • The examples you site are all on broadcast networks available free over the air. I can have a data connection and still get free OTA channels. That's my plan as a late-twenty something. Netflix and hulu will do me just fine.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Thesis ( 1983882 )
            My family and I have never cared about watching the Academy Awards, the Emmy Awards, or any other such awards show for many years. A late freind of mine actually won an Emmy (he did audio work), and even he didn't think much of it. He laughed when I asked him about it years ago. He told me that they gave him the thing on stage, then when he went off stage they took it from him, and said it would cost him $300 to keep the statuette. He always laughed about that, but myself and others who knew him did as well

          • Why would ratings drop? New customers don't get counted in ratings sweeps it is all averages anyways.

            Remember They still count you if your TV is off but your cable box is on(like is generally required for DVR's to function). So while my TV hasn't been on in 2 days My cable box has been recording a show.(yea just one there is only one Between Wedensday and Saturday that I care enough to keep up with).

            The only reason I have a full cable package at all is because I wanted ONE station that wasn't in the small

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by unitron ( 5733 )

              ... So while my TV hasn't been on in 2 days My cable box has been recording a show.(yea just one there is only one Between Wedensday and Saturday that I care enough to keep up with)....

              Of course.

              The others you care about will all be scheduled at the same time on the same night on several different channels.

            • Remember They still count you if your TV is off but your cable box is on(like is generally required for DVR's to function).

              It sounds like you're talking about 'older' DVRs, e.g. using an IR blaster. Nowadays, you just get a DVR that has a cable card in it (which the cable company ones do, or a TiVo, or the cable card boxes that work with Windows Media Center), and it *is* the cable box. The latter ones work better than cable company DVRs, and can even be _cheaper_ than the cable company one since you pay

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Arker ( 91948 )
          It's hardly limited to 20 somethings, I am about twice that age and have data only, never in my life paid for tv. I would consider it if they would turn off the ads, but as long as they want me to pay them to deliver my eyeballs to their advertisers it isnt even tempting.
          • This. I can see using ads to monitize free/OTA programming, but I refuse to pay to watch ads, which is why Hulu doesn't get our money either.

          • Think of it as paying for the shows. I use a DVR to avoid most ads (yes, there is product placement, but as someone who hates regular commercials, product placement doesn't bug me).

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Arker ( 91948 )
              Thanks, but no. I'll think of it as paying entirely too high a price for the shows (which are almost all utter crap to begin with) and I will continue to decline the offer. If I cared that much about TV, I could and would rig a DVR using free feeds. Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than watch product placements.

        • I'm happy to see the old business models die. its a bit of cosmic justice or pay-back, if you will.

          If only it were - at 90% gross margin [stopthecap.com] and nearly zero capital investment in the future [stopthecap.com] it is the cablecos turned ISPs that are getting even richer on the new business models.

        • The telcos are also eager to kill off the POTS network entirely, in hopes it will get them out from under (what's left of) common carrier and universal service regulations. I'm generally skeptical of government, but I'm not sure that what we want is less constraints for AT&T and Verizon. I've personally known drug cartels that are better corporate citizens than those companies.

        • 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.

          It isn't just people in their 20's who do this. I'm closer to 40 but I do things similarly. No POTS, no cable, no satellite. I have a cell phone, 12 Mbps DSL, a WDTV streaming media box for Netflix and whatever I download, and a DB4 antenna I built to get local OTA TV. Its been about two and a half years since I kicked the cable habit. It was tough for a couple of months, but I don't miss it one bit anymore. I would have to have a lot more disposable income or they'd have to seriously cut their prices (and

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rwyoder ( 759998 )

      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.

      Agreed. I have Internet-only from Comcast *and* it includes native IPv6.
      The last time I had cable TV was 2001, and that was only because I worked for AT&T Broadband and it was an employee perk.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rjr162 ( 69736 )

      Comcast charges the same.

      I have their 50/10 servic which had a special of like $54/month or something and goes to $65/month after 6 months or so. When I called to place the order, the person told me if I wanted I could bundle with the basic cable for no extra cost (after which I spent 5 minutes asking in various forms to ensure it wouldnt cost any extra at any point etc)

      So in the end comcast, at least here charges the same for internet alone as it does with internet + basic tv (the tuner box doesnt have a m

  • Do you have any idea how many people pay for ESPN (the most expensive cable channel) that never watch ESPN? Why? (Hint: It's owned by Disney.)

    • They are perfectly happy to allow you to rent ESPN separately of Disney Channel. What they won't do, is rent you Disney Channel without also renting ESPN, and that is where they get you, if you're a sports-loving parent of young children.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Arker ( 91948 )
        And what if you are a parent of young children who has no interest whatsoever in watching grown men run up and down a field fighting over a ball like little children?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        They are perfectly happy to allow you to rent ESPN separately of Disney Channel. What they won't do, is rent you Disney Channel without also renting ESPN, and that is where they get you, if you're a sports-loving parent of young children.

        And by that, I assume you meant "non-sports-loving".

        Of course, you know the reason for that, right? If the sports lovers actually had to pay the cost of ESPN on their own, most of them would balk at the price. So they subsidize the heck out of ESPN by making it hard to av

        • That sounds like a tying arrangement.

  • Well, I am the slime from your video
    Oozin along on your livinroom floor

    I am the slime from your video
    Cant stop the slime, people, lookit me go

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mill3d ( 1647417 )

      I am gross and perverted, obsessed and deranged

      I've existed for years but very little has changed

      I'm the tool of the government and industry too

      For I'm destined to rule and regulate you

      I may be vile and pernicious, but you can't look away

      I make you think I'm delicious with the stuff that I say

      I am the best you can get, have you guessed me , yet?

      Well I'm the slime oozing out of your TV set!

      You will obey me while I lead you and eat the garbage that I feed you

      Until the day that we don't need you, don't got for

  • Instead of getting an entire channel, what if you just subscribed to individual programs, delivered to your set-top box each week, waiting for you to watch them at your convenience?

    • YT wants to do something like this. But instead of talking single cents per subscription they are talking dollars. It would cost me more to subscribe to 20 YT paid channels than I pay for 200 TV channels.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by farnz ( 625056 )

        That comparison misses the point, though - for most people, the goal isn't to have as many channels available as possible, it's to have something to watch whenever you want to watch TV. I currently have around 100 TV channels (all free to air), but I'm not guaranteed to find something I want to watch when I choose to watch TV.

        I used to pay to get around 300 channels, but stopped when I realised that I still wasn't able to find something I wanted to watch whenever I turned on the TV set, and that when I did

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rjr162 ( 69736 )

          You can. Its called services like Vudu which (shortly after the episode first airs typically) has the episode (s) you want available to be streamed or downloaded to a device which supports Vudu. But each episode will run you typically 99 cents to $1.99
          I guess if you dont watch much tv, this would be a good way to do it, but if you watch even just 25 episodes at the $1.99 price a month, you could have dish network with like 150 to 200 channels (or for around $80 you could have the hopper/joey with 250 channe

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by pepty ( 1976012 )
            The subscription model I want: I'll pay them $1 per hour of original programming, and somewhat less for repeats. They pay me $1 per hour of commercials that I'm forced to watch during those shows. That works out to about 40 - 75 cents per hour for them.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by cffrost ( 885375 )

      Instead of getting an entire channel, what if you just subscribed to individual programs, delivered to your set-top box each week, waiting for you to watch them at your convenience?

      The two BitTorrent clients I've used (Vuze and uTorrent) both support this, provided "set-top box" means computer, or something like one of the combination media-player/NAS units Western Digital offers.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )
        Not exactly a reasonable comparison... since in such a case the content being downloaded would probably be infringing on copyright.
    • You mean like Netflix, Hulu, Crunchyroll, and Amazon Video On Demand, sent to your Roku or other internet streaming set top box?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Instead of getting an entire channel, what if you just subscribed to individual programs, delivered to your set-top box each week, waiting for you to watch them at your convenience?

      Already exists for a lot of shows. Check out iTunes and other places - most often "subscription passes" to TV shows and usually have it day of or the day after at a couple of bucks per show.

      If it's network TV, it's often even better, as it's often either on Hulu or the website of the network (e.g., CBS), especially since they're

  • Channel Guides (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'd really appreciate it if my channel guide only contained information pertaining to the channels I actually receive with my package.

    I might be less likely to switch the set off in disgust and watch youtube videos instead. Or head on over to thepiratebay.se when I see the neat stuff that's playing on channels that aren't in the package I bought.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sinryc ( 834433 )
      Most set top boxes have that somewhere in the settings.

      • not most cable systems. Directv has that (it does not work 100%) and they channel maps are much better then cable.

      • Most set top boxes have that somewhere in the settings.

        Yeah, and then once you've hidden the junk channels (seriously how many home shopping channels are there? who the hell watches\buys this crap??) the company takes great pleasure in moving the channels around, making you have to head back into the settings and figure out which numbers now need to be unblocked...

        Gets especially painful at my Dad's house because he expects me to fix it for him and doesn't seem to understand why channels disappear from on

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rjr162 ( 69736 )

      Dish boxes do that (well the hopper for sure)

  • From a Legal Standpoint (Score:4, Informative)

    by Nick H. ( 2839611 ) on Friday March 01, 2013 @11:44PM (#43052251)
    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.
    • This makes sense. Additionally, since their argument seems to be "its illegal when they do it, but when we do it based on our own metrics of what consumers like it will be legal". That strikes me as a weak position to argue from.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      Maybe they took the time to actually present real evidence of harm this time. :-)

      In my quick skim of the subject, it didn't look like the courts held much of anything beyond that the people bringing the case failed to provide enough evidence for it to actually go to trial.

      That is to say that they did not hold that those things did not injure competition, but rather that those things did not inherently injure competition, and that without further evidence to support the claim of injury, the prosecution prese

  • Don't want to be a dumb pipe... (Score:3)

    by ducomputergeek ( 595742 ) on Friday March 01, 2013 @11:55PM (#43052315)

    That's why you see the deals like HBO GO where you have to be a subscriber to access. Even Hulu has gone this route to appease the media interest and now you have Comcast, a provider, also in the content business.

    At the same time Netflix is getting into the content business.

    The last thing the cable companies want to happen is for HBO to realize that, "Hey people might pay us $15 a month to watch HBO online without the cable fee."

    Honestly, if MLB.tv didn't blackout the local games both me and my father would ditch cable TV.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rachit ( 163465 )

      The last thing the cable companies want to happen is for HBO to realize that, "Hey people might pay us $15 a month to watch HBO online without the cable fee."

      HBO probably already realizes that. But of course they are owned by Time Warner...

    • HBO knows that people would pay them directly. HBO has said as much. HBO also knows that it has the largest sales force in the country and it doesn't have to pay them. Every cable and satellite provider is selling HBO. If HBO decided to start selling on it's own, those cable and satellite partners wouldn't have the same incentive to keep pushing HBO in their packages. HBO has decided they get more money from the current arrangement.

  • Since that is how they sell their own bundles to their customers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      It's not ironic. The very reason they bundle the channels is because they have to buy them in bundles as well.

      What would the alternative be? Offer people a la carte and have to pay for a bunch of channels nobody wants to subscribe to? They'd have to charge a higher costs for the channels people do subscribe to in order to pay the bundled station pricing from the providers. Then they'd simply look like they were offering less TV for more money. Their competitors would trumpet how few stations you get for $X.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        It's simple math. You charge the amount per channel based on subscription to that channel and the "cost" allocated to that bundle by the number of subscribers. You can a la carte price a bundle. People do it all the time in bakeries, where the "bakery" buys packages of products and then sells them on. They get 3 peach, 3 blueberry, 3 apple, 3 chocolate, and sell them one at a time to people who come in. Maybe the chocolate is $0.50 more than the apple, and the blueberry is $0.10 cheaper than the apple

  • When Verizon brought its FiOS TV service to Massapequa Park, NY, Cablevision brought lawyers [connectedp...online.com].

    When plans were getting drawn for a West Side Stadium that would compete with its (now-spun-off [bloomberg.com]) Madison Square Garden, they brought astroturf ads.

    When our place got FiOS, they began to bring salesmen.

    When they leave, unsuccessful and late to the table of real competition, and bested by a once-monopoly they apparently sought to outdo, they bring me joy.

    (Though to be fair, when they show their Michael Bolton ad, it b

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by unitron ( 5733 )

      ...Though to be fair, when they show their Michael Bolton ad, it brings me to the TV.)

      Does this ad perchance feature Percy Sledge reaching down Bolton's throat and ripping his lungs out?

      That would be TV worth paying for.

  • Damned monopolistss (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Simple: prohibit content providers from also selling internet access. Socialize the Internet. There's no other clean choice. Treat it as the public utility that it is and regulate it as such.

  • Why put up with cable companies and their fees, just stream or buy it later. This strategy only works if you have patience and don't have to be 'in the loop' and talk about it at work or elsewhere. This is a strategy I prefer. There are much better things to do than watch TV.

  • So.... (Score:3)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @12:53AM (#43052505) Journal
    A monopoly that is screwing its customers is mad that a somewhat competitive group is able to make it include ALL of its stuff.

    Makes sense to me.
  • How many channels does NBCUniversal have? (besides lots) They now own the origin & the pipe.
  • Time Warner has offered internet service without a TV package in my area for at least ten years. Is this really not the norm? AT&T was reluctant to offer "naked" DSL, first telling customers it wasn't possible, then charging higher prices, but it has been a while since they started selling it. I have the fake version of AT&T's Uverse at home now (12 Mbps DSL, no TV or anything much faster available), and they no longer charge a higher price to non-phone customers.

    I'm not sure which is worse here
  • I hate paying for crappy stations I don't watch also, what are you going to do for me. If I only want one damn station you should me happy to give me one. Not ass rape me for cash, now you know why I am not a TV customer. And I am being ass raped for the price of you damn bandwidth while we are on the subject. Feel that ass hurt now you know how every customer of yours feels.
  • Question To Providers: "Why can't I just pay for each individual program that i want to watch or opt to buy a seasonal package of shows/channels from you at a discounted price?
    Providers: Well see the channels that we subsidize wouldn't last and go under.
    Question to Providers: Why is that my problem?
    Providers: ........

    • Easy answer: racism.

      Where my Mom lives, they had an 'election' to determine which channels to eliminate and which to add. Something like 95% of households said to drop BET, the Black Entertainment Channel. This is racist on its face and any attempt to deny it is also racist. BET cannot exist without packages.

      • BET cannot exist without packages in your area

        Fixed that for you.

        In my area, BET could do just fine without any packages at all. This has absolutely nothing to do with racism, and you're an idiot to think it does.

        Black culture is DIFFERENT from white culture. Blacks and a small percentage of other races like black culture and will watch a TV channel dedicated to it. Every other channel is more or less dedicated to white culture. Most whites watch channels dedicated to white culture. Many asians and blacks also watch channels dedicated to white cul

  • So, you pay $30 a month for a set of channels and watch 5 of them, with a couple you might occasionally have a look at.

    Instead there's an a la carte option. Now, the cable company knows that you're willing to pay $30 a month for those 5 channels. Why would they not simply charge you $6 each?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      So, you pay $30 a month for a set of channels and watch 5 of them, with a couple you might occasionally have a look at.

      Instead there's an a la carte option. Now, the cable company knows that you're willing to pay $30 a month for those 5 channels. Why would they not simply charge you $6 each?

      Not only that, but all the lesser channels are starting to get some of the "prime" programming now. If you carefully observe what the stations are doing, they're evolving for the a la carte option - putting top ranked sh

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by N!k0N ( 883435 )

        but that's more because History doesn't have enough programming slots for cramming shitty reruns of room-temperature IQ programming on one channel

        For example, Monday (04 March) ... 00:00 to 11:59 EDT, per tv guide website. Times are the start time of the show. All are repeats unless otherwise noted.

        History:
         The Bible (2h - 00)
        Vikings(1h - 2,3,)
        Infomercials (0.5h -4-5.30 inclusive)
        Classroom (1h - 6)
        The Real West (1h - 7)
        American Pickers (0.5 & 1h - 08-19.30 inclusive)
        Pawn Stars (0.5h - 20,20.

  • I had nothing BUT a net connection from the cable company. I re-upped TV a couple years ago but every day I question why I'm spending an $154 a month for cable and net service when I can get 100mpbs for $100 a month and all you can eat video.

  • So the channel provider wants to sell the cable company channels only as a bundle, not as individual channels. The exact same thing the cable company does to its customers. Just another example of a company that wants to play by a different set of rules.

  • Funny, just north of the Border I can get Cable internet without TV, even starting to get competition for the service in place. Still mainly overpriced, but it seems for once we're better than the US in this regard.

    Now if only we could get speeds like you guys get

  • Due to some life problems I had to move quickly on the cheap. I ended up in time warner territory and had no problem ordering 15Mb internet for $29.99 a month sans tv or phone. Of course, time warner has jacked up the price to $43.99 but that plus netflix at $7.99 is still better than the $100 for a tv/internet package.

  • I've had cable internet only for years. With Cablevision in NYC. The didn't seem reluctant to me.

  • ... my "Kill your TV" bumper sticker?" "

    What I want is a "Strangle your cable company" sticker.

    The TV's not the one doing me wrong.

  • So a cable company is upset because the only way they can get certain channels is to buy them in a bundle with other channels that they don't want. Congratulations, Cablevision! Now you know how your customers feel.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close