| So let me get this straight Cablevision forcing you to take channels you don't watch just for the few you do... and that is acceptable while Viacom forcing Cablevision to take channels no one watches is not acceptable to them? |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | It's the do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do approach. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to NOCTech75
said by NOCTech75:Cablevision forcing you to take channels you don't watch just for the few you do. And why do you think that is? Because Cablevision is forced in to that by the content companies. Viacom isn't the only content company that forces cable networks to buy lousy channels to get the few that are worth something.
--
I will be perfectly happy if the budget cuts specified in the Budget Control Act go into effect. 3 cheers for the sequester. Take the money from the drunken federal spenders. |
|
cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by Linklist:And why do you think that is? Because Cablevision is forced in to that by the content companies. Viacom isn't the only content company that forces cable networks to buy lousy channels to get the few that are worth something.
They have the ability to offer say a Viacom package, a ESPN package, a Discovery package, etc. There is no requirement that they have to bundle Viacom packages with Discovery. The content companies though may price their per-subscriber rates though such that if they aren't in the base package their rate is going to be substantially higher. |
|
| They have to offer ALL of Viacom channels in a single standard service level or get nothing at all - This is the cause for the law suit. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| said by boredsysadm:They have to offer ALL of Viacom channels in a single standard service level or get nothing at all - This is the cause for the law suit.
Just like if I want ONE channel out of a bundle I have to get ALL of those channels. |
|
| reply to cdru
No, but it is very possible the licenses require Cablevision to pay per-subscriber, regardless of how Cablevision prices it for subscribers. That would not be unheard of. So spinning it off on its own package would be counter productive if they have to pay for each subscriber anyway. |
|
| reply to cdru
And when they are "forced" to include those channels on the basic or even extended basic tiers and not the pick a bundle tier, where does your argument go? |
|
cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by Skippy25:And when they are "forced" to include those channels on the basic or even extended basic tiers and not the pick a bundle tier, where does your argument go? No one is "forced". Viacom needs Cablevision for the number one market in the country, and Cablevision needs Viacom as they have some of the most popular basic cable channels. Because of this it's a standoff to see which side flinches first in the negotiations.
In this case however, instead of dropping the channel(s) during the dispute, they are carrying them but taking them to court. Customers don't get angry, Cablevision looks like they are looking out for the consumer, and Viacom gets paid. The lawsuit will linger for a few weeks, then Cablevision and Viacom will kiss, make up, and laugh it off as they send out a increased bill to the consumer. |
|
| reply to cdru
So right Cdru thats cablevisions slogan when they put and add on tv "It's the do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do approach." |
|
 Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | reply to NOCTech75
Thats an interesting look at it!
Someone should ask cablevision this! |
|
|
|
| reply to cdru
Re: So let me get this straight said by cdru:said by Linklist:And why do you think that is? Because Cablevision is forced in to that by the content companies. Viacom isn't the only content company that forces cable networks to buy lousy channels to get the few that are worth something.
They have the ability to offer say a Viacom package, a ESPN package, a Discovery package, etc. There is no requirement that they have to bundle Viacom packages with Discovery. The content companies though may price their per-subscriber rates though such that if they aren't in the base package their rate is going to be substantially higher. No they do not. The content providers even go as far as to tell them which other packages, and which channels they can be packaged with. Some even state they have to be with competitors channels. |
|
| I hope this begins to catch on with content providers ... in actions, not just with words or complaints.
--
B-Movie DVDs |
|
| reply to NOCTech75
You don't get it.
Cablevision and other providers force you to take channels you don't watch because the channel owners force them into it with their bundling. (If you offer channel A in a package, you must also offer channels B and C as well). That is the point of the lawsuit. If they win, there will be more opportunities for ala carte for the consumer. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| reply to cdru
dropping channels during disputes have historically led to customer's leaving their current provider and switching to another provider, the playing field isn't as level as you indicate. to Viacom if the carrier refuses to pay and drops the channel during the dispute Viacom doesn't really care, customers get mad at their tv provider, not the channel itself and if the channel is popular enough, like for instance comedy central users while switch to another provider that hasn't dropped comedy central in the past. the cable companies always come back to Viacom because they need their programming more than Viacom needs them.
The smaller the cable company and the more competition in their area the less they care, Cablevision areas are most often areas that Verizon FiOS covers. |
|
