Posted on 09/22/2007 3:48:45 AM PDT by Las Vegas Dave
An antitrust lawsuit filed Thursday accuses leading programming, cable and satellite TV firms of colluding to only offer prepackaged tiers of bundled programs and refusing to sell programming a la carte.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s Western Division, seeks damages and an end to the bundling practices.
The plaintiffs are named individual subscribers of Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, EchoStar and DirecTV, seeking to establish a class consisting of “expanded-basic” customers of those companies and Charter and Cablevision Systems over the past four years.
In the complaint, filed by Maxwell M. Blecher of Blecher & Collins in Los Angeles on Sept. 20, they’re suing those multichannel video providers and NBC Universal, Time Warner Inc., Viacom, Walt Disney Co. and Fox Entertainment, under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Each of the programmer defendants owns TV programs and interests in one or more TV channels. The cable and satellite providers supply a “basic cable” bundled service that’s required to be purchased before a subscriber can access other tiers of service, the lawsuit says.
The complaint cites a Nielsen Media Research report that states the average cable subscriber pays for 85 channels he or she doesn’t watch in order to get the 16 channels he or she does watch. It also cites a poll, by the Associated Press-Ipsos, that found 78% of respondents would rather buy only the channels they choose themselves. And it cites a Federal Communications Commission estimate that consumers are charged about $100 million a year for channels they wouldn’t buy under an a la carte regime.
National Cable & Telecommunications Association senior VP of communications and public affairs Rob Stoddard said the organization, which represents cable operators and programmers, doesn’t comment on litigation that names companies within and outside NCTA. "However, our view of a la carte hasn't changed," he said. "Many government and private studies have found that mandated a la carte would lessen programming choice, decrease diversity in programming, and raise prices for most cable customers."
Parents Television Council endorsed the lawsuit. "On behalf of our 1.2 million members, we applaud the commencement of legal action which, we hope, will lead to the ability for cable subscribers to pick and choose – and pay for – only the cable networks they want," PTC president Tim Winter said in a statement.
Not so! Most (if not all) cable companies have HD locals on their system, but your HD set needs the QAM tuner. I have two HD sets and both pick up hundreds of frequencies on the QAM tuner, including locals in HD and cable channels.
I believe the FCC does not allow cable companies to upcharge for local HD, but without the QAM tuner you will need to rent their box.
This is the tired old mantra of the monopolist.
Breaking up the monopolies will create more competition which will drop prices, increase quality and innovation.
BUMP
I would like to be able to go into my local Winn Dixie and not have to put up with the hundreds of items that I do not use and never will buy. It would lower the prices on those items that I do purchase. I think that I will sue.
THAT'S the key... Breaking up the monopoly! However, if the monopoly is allowed to continue AND they go to ala-carte programming, you can bet your bottom dollar that you will get less while paying more.
For instance, I got family across town who is able to choose from 3 different cable providers. While in my city, the only cable provider is TWC. Heck, I've got 3 choices for ISP over cable, but guess what... All three charge the same amount! Big surprise, huh?
Mark
I NEVER said I supported the monopoly, but if you REALLY think this will LOWER your bill, you’ll see!
I do not work for the cable companies and don’t even watch TV.
The analogy isn't valid. Your grocery store purchases are not subsidizing sales of the products you don't buy, but that's exactly what's occurring with cable companies. In a grocery store items are stocked in quantities necessary to meet demand, and most are profitable (except for a few loss leaders).
A better analogy would be if the store forced you to purchase every item on its shelves in order to get the couple dozen you want. Furthermore, there would be no other store from which you could purchase groceries.
“Beleive it or not...most business prefer socialism over free market.....
Pure unadultrated drivel”
The business model for “socialism” is more closely allied with Naziism. Socialism for the people and a Govt controlled pseudo-capitalism for big business. The Clintons are excellent examples of this kind of “socialism” today on the political front. The likes of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, the Rockefellers, the Mellons, and others are business examples supportive of this brand of socialism.
I'd welcome the change. I have Dish Network and I know I have at least half the channels I'm paying for selectively left out of my "favorites" lists.
Television could be so much more than it is now. It's a crying shame that the folks who select and run the various cable channel programs are so caught up in celebrity worship and sensationalism. They say it's the public who has the celebrity worship and sensationalism, but the public doesn't choose the programs.....
but if you don’t voluntarily buy Mtv you will be a racist “homophobe” and you will be charged with a thought crime.
(sarcasm off)
“This lawsuit actually would help smaller cable/sat companies as it would break up monopolies”
The smaller cable companies suck too.
(sarcasm off)
(sarcasm back on, but only at 50%)
¿Es MTV en Español?
Just can't win...
speak Esparanto! Its the Hillary Law.
Maybe.
поговорите Esperento! Сво закон Hillary.
There are relatively few broadcast channels however. It is an appealing option for the local channels.
Another significant problem with cable/satelite tv is the bundling of the dvr and signal. There is a real opportunity for convergence between computing and entertainment that is stymied because digital tuners on a pc cannot unscramble the digital tv signal. The cable/sat companies do not want anything that makes it easier for a customer to switch services. If this practice were the norm in internet service, you would have to get a new computer everytime you switched internet service.
Nonsense. You may believe bills will go up for whatever reason, and that may be true in the sense that the current providers will lose certain nuggets of they way they prefer to do business, and they write out the bills, after all, so why wouldn't they pass on their extra expenses?
The problem is such a view languishes in the context of monopolism, without real competition. Service competition is almost always in the consumers' interest, and if monopolies can be broken up and competitors be allowed in, consumers are more likely to get what they demand, rather than what monopolies have demanded of them in the form of their subscription bills. Governmental corruption has fostered their monopolistic existence, and that needs to be eliminated, as always (read: as with health care).
For forty years I've marveled how in village, town, and city, budding monopolists came to the city fathers with the offers of promised, certain tax increases, if not outright kickbacks, if the aldermen would just keep competition out. After all, they would say, the cable people were going to have to invest very significant infrastucture dollars to modernize the community. The cable people would claim not to be willing to do that if the city fathers would readily give access rights over to any johnny-come-lately cable provider.
As with most every politician, they immediately sucked up to those offering money.
HF
I’d Pick: Discover Channel, History Channel, Fox News, CNN, PBS, ABC, NBC, WB, CBS, Animal Planet, Travel Channel, CMT, Food Network, TBN and the other Religious Channels, and a few others..
I would definately relish getting rid of MTV, VH1, BET, MSNBC, the Home Shopping Networks, and HGTV and the like!
Yep: Does anyone really think that if we had, still had ‘MaBell’ and AT&T as the sole Phone providers that we would now have Cell Phones, and affordable longdistance phone rates..?
The issue is that cable operators are FORCED to carry all the channels in order to get some top channels.
For example ESPN requires an operator take ALL the ESPNS to get the one.
Same with others.
This will not affect just cable operators but their contracts with the providers.
If bundling is broken up.
Could we finally get a TRUE conservative oriented news network? CNN, FNC and PMSNBC must be concerned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.