FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2013-Aug-15 2:34 pm
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/ |
|
|
Interesting argumentOne 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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Umm...Prescription services?? |
|
GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA |
They're not well (clearly). |
|
Dodge Premium Member join:2002-11-27
1 recommendation |
Dodge
Premium Member
2013-Aug-15 2:57 pm
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 |
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.) |
|
|
Freedom of choiceI 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. |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2013-Aug-15 3:26 pm
TWC should put up an Antenna in their major city marketsAnd 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
Member
2013-Aug-15 3:35 pm
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. |
|
|
two optionseither 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. |
|
|
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_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC 1 edit |
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. |
|
|
to JimMcCoy
Re: Interesting argumentTWC 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 |
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 |
to CXM_Splicer
Re: False advertising?!?but their TOS does cover that that channel line ups may change at any time. |
|
|
billdacat26
Anon
2013-Aug-15 4:17 pm
Got Aero???Just what if TW figured out a way of providing an "Aero" type service????? |
|
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
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
2013-Aug-15 4:26 pm
I Somewhat AgreePersonally 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_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
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 |
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. |
|
|
This is SillyThis 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. |
|
|
to Kearnstd
Re: TWC should put up an Antenna in their major city marketsand that court case can lead to months of no showtime / other NON OTA CBS channels. |
|
|
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. |
|
jjeffeoryjjeffeory join:2002-12-04 Bloomington, IN |
to TBBroadband
Re: False advertising?!?That's NOT a get out of jail free card. |
|
|
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 |
|
PamelaTSDigital Chick join:2004-04-20 Dallas, TX Asus RT-AC66 HTC 5G Hub
|
TWC also blocked Smithsonian, which they charge extra for soThey 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
2013-Aug-15 8:43 pm
Problem solvedThis 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
Anon
2013-Aug-15 10:58 pm
time warner cable is a rip offtime 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 |
to CXM_Splicer
Re: False advertising?!?But they do have CBS, just not everywhere. |
|