dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-05-15 09:13:36: Back in 2010 News Corporation raised the retransmission fee dispute bar to a new level of annoying by blocking Cablevision broadband user access to their content on Hulu as well. ..



Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX

4 recommendations

Ha

Way to piss off users who get their content legit. They'll now seek other ways to get ahold of that content, if you like it or not.


ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

3 recommendations

Yep, they intentionally spit in the customers eye, then they are shocked when the customer returns the favor.



morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000

Would Comcast do the same?

Would Comcast do the same should the situation arise? These are the reasons why net neutrality is critical to the internet. Otherwise, customers are subject to the vindictive and confused actions of short signed corporate giants.


ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

Well, first, net neutrality really isn't in play here, since Viacom owns the Web sites that are refusing to stream content to these customers. The idea that a Webmaster can deny access to their site based on where the request is coming from has been around forever. Personally, I think it's an incredibly vindictive and stupid thing to do, but, if Viacom wants to piss off people, then who am I to say they can't.

However, if the cable company was the one blocking the content, then, yes, that would be a huge net neutrality issue. So, when you mention Comcast, are you referring to the content provider side of the company blocking access to Comcast-owned content, or are you referring to the cable side blocking access to another programmer's content?



n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
reply to morbo

Actually this could cut both ways. I am opposed to the Comcast destruction of TWC but if Comcast got into a dispute with say CBS or Viacom, do you think CBS or Viacom would pull their programming from 40% of the market to make a point? Their ad rates would plummet. Of course it also allows Comcrap to force treble charges for NBC and their related properties to the remaining 60% of the carriers.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.



PlusOne

@50.182.54.x
reply to ISurfTooMuch

said by ISurfTooMuch:

Well, first, net neutrality really isn't in play here, since Viacom owns the Web sites that are refusing to stream content to these customers. The idea that a Webmaster can deny access to their site based on where the request is coming from has been around forever. Personally, I think it's an incredibly vindictive and stupid thing to do, but, if Viacom wants to piss off people, then who am I to say they can't.

+1
Yes, stupid - but legal.
And I agree that the overused "net neutrality" concept is misused here like it is in many other situations.


Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1
reply to Duramax08

Re: Ha

said by Duramax08:

Way to piss off users who get their content legit. They'll now seek other ways to get ahold of that content, if you like it or not.

I agree. And what is the logic here? Is banning those users supposed to put more pressure on Cable One? I could understand monetizing the issue, feed CableOne IPs more commercials in online content to make up for the lost subscriber revenue. But to block them completely?
Why would you give people no choice but to pirate your stuff?


jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

A Step in the Right Direction

Here is an idea. Create a product that can be sold to individual consumers wishing to view Viacom content. I loathe the ESPN3 and HBO Go models that keep individual customers from impacting the business model.

While I don't welcome the potential fractured market, it sure would be nice to have the option to purchase what I want to watch a la carte without having my access permission being dictated by an overpriced subscription TV package through my cable TV provider.

Perhaps these corporate feuds will eventually lead to a system where the individual consumers have more control over the market and the pricing.



RWSI

join:2012-11-27
Albuquerque, NM

Who has Cable One

CableOne who. CableOne is and has been losing customers more and more over the years. The desperate plant upgrades are too little too late.


ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
reply to jmn1207

Re: A Step in the Right Direction

That product already exists in multiple forms: Roku, Apple TV, FireTV, PS4, XBOX One, and Chromecast. The issue is that these companies don't want to sell you these channels directly because you might not want some or all of them. Right now, they get to take money from pretty much every cable sub out there and not worry about whether those folks want to watch their channels. With a-la-carte, they actually must pay attention to what people want, or those people won't subscribe.

No, these guys like the current model just fine, and so do the cable companies. Sure, they have their little spats every so often, but they're just arguing over who gets what percentage of the pie--sort of like two bank robbers arguing over how to split the money from their latest job. Either way, it was us who got robbed.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Hokey Polka

So now "internet openness" is about watching network TV programs without paying for them?

While I think CBS/Viacom loses the PR battle here and the tactic is childish , it won't impact their bottom line. Cable One will lose the customers, then give in and make everyone pay more, and Karl will assail them over "semi-annual rate hike season".



jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
reply to ISurfTooMuch

Re: A Step in the Right Direction

I think you misunderstand my point. The product I am speaking of is the Viacom content, or HBO, or ESPN content. I know these companies enjoy having no direct consumer input with the supply and demand model, and it is my hope that things get so nasty between the 2 parties that eventually they will have to turn to the consumers if they hope to get ANY business.



OldCableGuy3

@207.191.193.x

Not just CableOne

My ISP which is called ImOn which recently dropped the Viacom channels from their lineup has also been caught up in this for nearly a month.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to elray

Re: Hokey Polka

said by elray:

So now "internet openness" is about watching network TV programs without paying for them?

Way off the mark. This is Viacom punishing CableOne subscribers because of a carriage dispute. Viacom makes its shows available to me on their web site (with all of its paid ads); but I don't even have a pay TV service. They could, probably should, just erect a paywall for all visitors to their site, who are not cable customers.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

whiteyonenh

join:2004-08-09
Keene, NH
reply to elray

said by elray:

So now "internet openness" is about watching network TV programs without paying for them?

While I think CBS/Viacom loses the PR battle here and the tactic is childish , it won't impact their bottom line. Cable One will lose the customers, then give in and make everyone pay more, and Karl will assail them over "semi-annual rate hike season".

Oh noes! I can't watch Teen Mom, time to fire CableOne and switch to DirecTV or [insert other multi-channel video provider here]. And in another year, another carriage dispute, and they switch again, until they have nowhere else to switch to.

Quite frankly, people need to suck it up, and just cancel altogether, otherwise, change won't happen, and bills will keep going up, all while cable companies are "fighting for their customers" by attempting to dispute the increases, and then their customers telling them to fk off and moving to another provider.

I get why the disputes are necessary, cable companies want to make money, and they see the light at the end of the tunnel that eventually people aren't going to be willing to pay as much as content providers are asking. It's also a two-way street, consumers need to start realizing that they don't *need* cable tv, and start canceling in large enough numbers. I also don't seem to feel like ANY of viacom's channels are "must have"

Obligatory listing of Viacom channels via wikipedia follows:


ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

said by whiteyonenh:

Oh noes! I can't watch Teen Mom, time to fire CableOne and switch to DirecTV or [insert other multi-channel video provider here]. And in another year, another carriage dispute, and they switch again, until they have nowhere else to switch to.

But, sadly, there are a significant number of people who will do exactly that. All that moronic TV isn't out there just to take up space. People are watching it, and their money spends just as well as yours or mine. Losing a show or two will get some to switch. Others will just grumble until they see the DirecTV or Dish ad in the pizza ad flyer that comes in the mail--the one offering them the low teaser rate and pointing out that they have the channels not available on (insert cable company name here). And these folks will think, "Hey, I can save a ton of money and even get my favorite show back. Sign me up!" They won't find out about the 24-month contract until later or realize that the great rate they saw was only for 6 months. By the time they notice these things, they'll already have switched, and the cable company they left will feel the pressure to cave on their carriage dispute.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

its piracy time on Cable One(Though VPNs are a legal option)

And here we go, A content owner giving people incentive to commit piracy by blocking off legit means of getting the content.

Id love it if they sued someone and the judge tossed the case and told Viacom that they could have kept their website open to the person.

Of course anybody desperate for Viacom content can just get a VPN, Fortunately that is still legal.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Camelot One

Re: Ha

said by Camelot One:

said by Duramax08:

Way to piss off users who get their content legit. They'll now seek other ways to get ahold of that content, if you like it or not.

I agree. And what is the logic here? Is banning those users supposed to put more pressure on Cable One? I could understand monetizing the issue, feed CableOne IPs more commercials in online content to make up for the lost subscriber revenue. But to block them completely?
Why would you give people no choice but to pirate your stuff?

Unfortunately the execs at media companies tend to be bad at understanding how the world of the internet works. They never remember that if people want something online they will get it one way or another.

And if its not piracy it will be VPNs. Though I know we have people on these very forums that would compare someone using a VPN in this situation as no different than pirating. Even though that is incorrect.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
Reviews:
·TDS

FCC should step in

This squabbles where customers are effected is the exact reason why we can't leave it up to the "Market". the FCC needs to step in and lay down the rules everyone has to play by.

I was affected when I was with Comcast squabbling with Netflix, and it's not fun when you're paying for content and can't get it just because two companies aren't getting along.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Kearnstd

Re: its piracy time on Cable One(Though VPNs are a legal option)

I can't say there is anything on any of their channels that I would honestly want to watch.



Probitas

@206.248.154.x

The FCC is the public relations arm

Don't expect them to do anything, anymore than you would expect the BBB to actually do anything about your bad experience. Just more PR for the masses.



crazyk4952
Premium
join:2002-02-04
united state
kudos:1

rate reduction?

Well it's now been 45 days since CableOne customers have lost those 15 Viacom channels. I wonder if their rate will be reduced soon?

/sarcasm



rbg

@24.140.1.x
reply to ISurfTooMuch

Re: Would Comcast do the same?

This certainly is a net neutrality issue. Viacom's websites are part of the network. The problem is the original rules (and even the proposed rules) only include part of the network. The rules only require an ISP to be "neutral." Thus, they leave a huge portion of the network (all the edge providers) free to do whatever they choose. That's why Viacom can get away with these shenanigans.

In order for the network to be neutral, the whole network needs to be included, not just one element. Otherwise, you set an uneven playing field where one party (Viacom) can use the rules as leverage against the others.

Think for a moment, though, what would happen if it was Facebook demanding payment from an ISP, or Google or Hulu or Netflix? Would they be able to wrench a dime or dollar from these competing ISPs? Almost certainly, or customers would migrate to another provider willing to pay to acquire market share. In the process, the Internet starts to look more like TV, heavily laden with content most people don't want or use.

Net Neutrality should enable any consumer to access any legal content from any device from the ISP of their choice. Then, it truly would be neutral.

Expand your moderator at work

Graycode

join:2006-04-17
reply to RWSI

Re: Who has Cable One

That's irrelevant. The cable company depends on where your home is. It's not like there's a choice.


Graycode

join:2006-04-17
reply to crazyk4952

Re: rate reduction?

In this case CableOne quickly replaced the Viacom channels with channels from other networks. During a spat with TimeWarner last year, CableOne did refund some money to us for the time that some channels were not available.

Viacom was demanding a 100+ percent rate increase, which is just insane. I'm very pleased that CableOne chose not to buckle like so many others do.



CBLONE

@24.117.2.x

I am a DirecTV customer

This really pisses me off because I subscribe to DirecTV for my TV services but use Cable One for my ISP. I can't access the content I actually pay for because of this blockade, which to me seems illegal. Not the blockade but blocking someone in my situation from content I pay for.



fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR
reply to rbg

Re: Would Comcast do the same?

said by rbg :

In order for the network to be neutral, the whole network needs to be included, not just one element. Otherwise, you set an uneven playing field where one party (Viacom) can use the rules as leverage against the others.

That can never happen.

At most, the FCC could regulate US-based websites, but they can never regulate foreign websites. Also, the newspaper version of the New York Times currently is unregulated, but under your proposal, the web version would be regulated by the FCC.

Is that really what you want?