Musical palate cleanser, cable bills blues edition

With the news that a cable company is suing Viacom over bundling a bunch of crappy channels nobody wants with the stuff that does get watched, here’s The Boss weighing in:

Now I know this is largely bs…

The manner in which Viacom sells its programming is illegal, anti-consumer, and wrong. Viacom effectively forces Cablevision’s customers to pay for and receive little-watched channels in order to get the channels they actually want. Viacom’s abuse of its market power is not only illegal, but also prevents Cablevision from delivering the programming that its customers want and that competes with Viacom’s less popular channels.

… because, let’s face it, if Cablevision were to succeed, it would pocket most of the savings as opposed to passing them on – this is a cable company we’re talking about here, right? – but you’ve got to start somewhere.  If nothing else, the rhetoric promises to be fun to watch.

About these ads

5 Comments

Filed under It's Just Bidness

5 responses to “Musical palate cleanser, cable bills blues edition

  1. Casey

    Man, Cablevision probably ought to be careful about the wording there. “forces… customers to pay for and receive little-watched channels in order to get the channels they actually want.” Isn’t that what every single cable/satellite company does to every single subscriber?

  2. Russ

    I want to know why I can’t watch the Dogs play basketball on ESPN3 (my computer) when I live in Houston and have no way of seeing them otherwise. The game is available on ESPN3, but it’s “blacked out” to me. Why? Who is being protected here?

    Yes, I know about proxies and such. It just doesn’t make any sense to black out something that I couldn’t get any other way.

    Oh, and screw the cable companies. All of them.

  3. Macallanlover

    I could understand the cable companies being able to bully subscribers in the days when there was no competition, heck we were all just thrilled to get more than 3 local channels. With the satellite companies’ growth, the entry of new competitors with hardwire capability, and the new “alternate”options (Hula, etc.) it was inevitable to see this type challenge. I am more surprised the competition hasn’t come out with 10, 30, 50 channel bundles to undercut the high prices being charged for 600+ channel packages. If it weren’t for Live Sports, I would have dumped Direct TV/Comcast already. I don’t need the access to 24 hour news when I get get even more via the internet, and I don’t watch any TV shows live now, they are all put on DVR until a later time anyway. Just football and the golf majors are the only reason I pay the $100+ every month. And a 40-50 channel ala carte option would be all I need, and then some.

  4. 69Dawg

    The problem I run into is the internet service/cable company. They make you pay for a package with cable or they charge you more for internet. If I lived in a big city I would be looking into the lower cost internet only providers. Truth be told I’m with Comcast because of their CSS channel. It’s the only good way to keep up with the Dawgs when you live in enemy territory (Florida).

  5. Macallanlover

    It’s not that bad, I lost CSS when I moved last spring, it isn’t available on Direct TV. I have had no trouble adjusting at all but I don’t follow all the minor sports braodcasts.