dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-08-15 14:29:23: Time Warner Cable has been slapped with a class action lawsuit in California for their blackout of CBS content, caused by the two companies inability to successfully negotiate new retransmission fees. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Why sue TWC & not CBS ?

Why suing TWC & not CBS ? I'd like to hear the Lawyers reason for that.

Story link:
»variety.com/2013/biz/new ··· 0578532/
»insidetv.ew.com/2013/08/ ··· lawsuit/

JimMcCoy
join:2011-08-20
Midlothian, VA

JimMcCoy

Member

Interesting argument

One has to consider however that ALL content carriers (e.g. TWC, DirectTV, Dish, etc.) are all subject to these same issues (actual and potential) with respect to content negotiations with content creators. I suspect that this will get nowhere, but who knows...stranger things have happened.
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Joe12345678

Member

what makeing like power and gas in some areas you can pick an Electric Supplier and local ones just bill for the hookup and they do not earn a profit from their supply charge.
Albert71292
join:2004-10-31
West Monroe, LA

Albert71292

Member

Umm...

Prescription services??

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

They're not well (clearly).
Dodge
Premium Member
join:2002-11-27

1 recommendation

Dodge

Premium Member

False advertising?!?

Are you kidding me? When was the last time anyone was forced to advertise something they don't have? It's not like TWC is saying that they have CBS, even if they mention local channels at all it would be as "local channels". I can just imagine car commercials going "Our car is the only one in its class that doesn't have HID lights, we also don't offer leather seating or wheels larger than 16 inches".

Besides CBS is blacking TWC customers out from their content, go sue CBS. The court should have just thrown it out immediately, but California being a state that it is, will hear every moronic case that comes along.

And the argument I wouldn't have subscribed - CANCEL YOUR SERVICE NOW! You had the channels up until now, you watched them, you didn't have any problems. The channels don't exist anymore - CANCEL THE SERVICE, 0 damages done. You chose to keep the service active, STFU, there is no basis for the lawsuit.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

2 edits

tshirt to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5

Re: Why sue TWC & not CBS ?

Because they are the ones charging for, but not delivering CBS programming.
However if their "content/channel line up may change any time without notice" disclaimer is adequate they aren't liable, or if they gave adequate notice on day one that they are no longer able to supply CBS content anymore, then one month of that portion of the fees would be their ONLY liability.
However, if TWC then chooses to sue CBS for voluntary breech under the current contract (still valid/ in force, I believe) CBS would have to reimburse all TWC's fees, fines and cost, PLUS profit, PLUS penalty which could be substantially more (CBS damaged TWC/customer relations which could take years to repair.)
maestro7
join:2004-08-31
Loganville, GA

maestro7

Member

Freedom of choice

I like the other responses here, especially the "prescription" part (which, strictly-speaking, has more to do with the theory of "positive prescription" (see dictionary.com)), which probably wouldn't fit here, because nobody has the right to a particular "subscription" of channels, nor does anyone have the right to force a carrier to provide x-number of channels.

However, along the same lines as nobody having the right to a subscription, TWC does not have to carry any channels they choose not to (the cascading consequence of which would likely be the precipitous drop-off of subscribers, depending on which channels were being cut loose), assuming that they have not entered into a contract requiring them to do so. CBS has the right as a corporation (likely) to "speak" on a given channel, but they don't have the right to be heard (e.g.: picked up by a carrier).

At the end of the day, EULAs will essentially say that they no more guarantee 100% service availability any more than a wireless carrier guarantees the same on their network.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

TWC should put up an Antenna in their major city markets

And then just pump that feed over the cable lines. Sure they would likely get sued but it would take months for a court order to be enforced on a company as big as TWC.
en103
join:2011-05-02

en103

Member

sued for breach of contract ??

Good luck with that. I would have sued a while back when TWC dropped Current TV after it was sold to Al Jazeera if I wanted to sue.
Similarly, when some channels were moved from standard NTSC to cable box only.

floyd007
join:2004-06-07
Glen Allen, VA

floyd007

Member

two options

either these class action law suiters obtain CBS with several rate increases per year (I would assume that TWC is attempting to prevent this), or do the right thing and sue CBS for blocking them from accessing their content on the internet. Some people do not know whom to blame.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to tshirt

Member

to tshirt

Re: Why sue TWC & not CBS ?

Maybe if the Plaintiffs tired to get out of TWC contract over this and TWC said no maybe they have a case. I do think that TWC has probably though of this and covered their bases with some sort of "Without Notice" language in the contract.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

1 edit

CXM_Splicer to Dodge

Premium Member

to Dodge

Re: False advertising?!?

said by Dodge:

Are you kidding me? When was the last time anyone was forced to advertise something they don't have? It's not like TWC is saying that they have CBS, even if they mention local channels at all it would be as "local channels".

But they DID advertise that they have CBS and CONTINUE to advertise they have CBS. This is their current (as of 2 minutes ago) standard TV channel list::

A & E*
ABC*
ABC Family*
AMC*
Animal Planet*
Azteca*
BBC America*
BET*
Bravo*
Cartoon Network*
CBS*
CNBC*
CNN*
Comedy Central*
CSPAN*
CSPAN 2*
CSPAN 3*
CW*
Discovery*

bla bla bla... more channels cut off for brevity

*Also available in HD. †On Demand may require purchase or subscription.
TBBroadband
join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH

TBBroadband to JimMcCoy

Member

to JimMcCoy

Re: Interesting argument

TWC does make it clear in the TOS that channels may change at any time. Lawsuits like this are pointless. TWC should add those channels back for those two customers and allow them to pay those new rates.
TBBroadband

TBBroadband to Joe12345678

Member

to Joe12345678
That is in most areas now days. deregulated electric and gas are on the rise. But in most cases the regulated provider owns a non-regulated provider.
TBBroadband

TBBroadband to CXM_Splicer

Member

to CXM_Splicer

Re: False advertising?!?

but their TOS does cover that that channel line ups may change at any time.

billdacat26
@lmco.com

billdacat26

Anon

Got Aero???

Just what if TW figured out a way of providing an "Aero" type service?????

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170

skeechan to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5

Re: Why sue TWC & not CBS ?

The TWC sub isn't under contract with CBS.

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

I Somewhat Agree

Personally I think TWC deserves at least some smacking around due to their refusal to credit customers for the lost CBS channels. Their ham handed response that they constantly change channel lineups does not pass the smell test. If TWC were in fact crediting customers I would see no basis for any suit.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to TBBroadband

Premium Member

to TBBroadband

Re: False advertising?!?

Depends on what you consider a 'lineup'... the channels they offer or the channel numbers on which they are received. Either way offering a service stating it has CBS, when it actually doesn't, is clearly false advertising.

It may seem obvious to industry savvy folks like us but people who don't have Time Warner now (a/k/a new subs) could very well be totally unaware of the blackout.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop

Re: Why sue TWC & not CBS ?

So they get the fees for the rest of the month and no EFT on the CATV (does TWC actually do more than month to month on CATV? this isn't Satellite) and maybe the install if recent.
IF they still WANT any service, make them start with a fresh contract, NO new promo.
mrwiggles
join:2013-06-10
Sherman, TX

mrwiggles

Member

This is Silly

This is silly. Customers are paying for access to their retransmission system, not individual channels. Yes individual channels may sway a consumers decision as to what package they purchase, however, since channels are not billed individually and the consumer cannot put a price on a channel, this wont go anywhere.
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Joe12345678 to Kearnstd

Member

to Kearnstd

Re: TWC should put up an Antenna in their major city markets

and that court case can lead to months of no showtime / other NON OTA CBS channels.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to tshirt

Member

to tshirt

Re: Why sue TWC & not CBS ?

It's not clear if they were an existing customer that lost CBS or did they sign up thinking that CBS was part of the deal.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to TBBroadband

Member

to TBBroadband

Re: False advertising?!?

That's NOT a get out of jail free card.
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Joe12345678 to en103

Member

to en103

Re: sued for breach of contract ??

said by en103:

Good luck with that. I would have sued a while back when TWC dropped Current TV after it was sold to Al Jazeera

I think the change of owner brakes the contract

PamelaTS
Digital Chick
join:2004-04-20
Dallas, TX
Asus RT-AC66
HTC 5G Hub

PamelaTS

Member

TWC also blocked Smithsonian, which they charge extra for so

They also blocked Smithsonian channel which they charge extra for. No credit offered! I've been aTWC customer a little over 18 months, outages without credits, poor service frequent equipment failures (6 tuning adapters failed), bad signal levels for months.

No, no, no I pulled the cable cards out of my TiVo's and boxed up the tuning adapters. I'm over TWC TV. Never again!
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow

Premium Member

Problem solved

This fight is a good reason to go to a la cart. If a content provider wants to jack the price up or add a bunch of channels then the customer can decide to like or be mad at the content provider not the cable company. It may stop some of the channel padding. The cable company would just be responsible for the pipe, billing, and any other IP service.

cjames
@verizon.net

cjames

Anon

time warner cable is a rip off

time to change to direct tv ,everyone, i see my neighbors cutting the cable and installing direct tv, i hate time warner cable ,internet and phone, we had cable year ago and it was always going out, for days and days, never got credit for lost programs,we changed to direct tv and have not had one problem plus my husband gets all the sports channels ,we love it, and it comes out cheaper than the time warner cable, so drop the cable people
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

to CXM_Splicer

Re: False advertising?!?

But they do have CBS, just not everywhere.
page: 1 · 2 · next