view:

topics flat nest

FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Why sue TWC & not CBS ?



Story link:

»variety.com/2013/biz/new ··· 0578532/

»insidetv.ew.com/2013/08/ ··· lawsuit/ Why suing TWC & not CBS ? I'd like to hear the Lawyers reason for that.Story link:

tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA 2 edits tshirt Premium Member 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.)

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member 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.

tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member 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.

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member 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.

skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan to FFH5

Premium Member to FFH5

The TWC sub isn't under contract with CBS.

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 Re: Interesting argument 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. TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: Interesting argument 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 JimMcCoy

Member to JimMcCoy

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. 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 Re: Umm... 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. CXM_Splicer

Looking at the bigger picture

Premium Member

join:2011-08-11

NYC 1 edit CXM_Splicer Premium Member 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".





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. 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*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 Member Re: False advertising?!? but their TOS does cover that that channel line ups may change at any time. CXM_Splicer

Looking at the bigger picture

Premium Member

join:2011-08-11

NYC CXM_Splicer Premium Member 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. silbaco

Premium Member

join:2009-08-03

USA silbaco Premium Member Re: False advertising?!? But they do have CBS, just not everywhere. jjeffeory

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04

Bullhead City, AZ jjeffeory to TBBroadband

Member to TBBroadband

That's NOT a get out of jail free card. 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. Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22

Des Plaines, IL Joe12345678 Member 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. 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. Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22

Des Plaines, IL Joe12345678 Member 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

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.

billdacat26

@lmco.com billdacat26 Anon Got Aero??? Just what if TW figured out a way of providing an "Aero" type service?????

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. 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.

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

Slobob

@comcast.net Slobob Anon Twc & CBS The cable companies (and sat) are bound by "must carry" laws that were lobbied for and won by the Networks. Other "subscription" channels can come and go, but any local in market OTA channel must be carried. Retransmission permission must be obtained from the broadcaster (in this case CBS) and there are surely negotiations on that front, but TWC is in violation of Fed guidelines.

gadz2001

@twcable.com gadz2001 Anon Re: Twc & CBS If a broadcaster forces a must carry they can not charge retrans fees, CBS wants the money they dont care about anything else. JSull

join:2013-01-15 JSull Member TWC/CBS stalemate Does this stalemate dare continue to opening weekend of the NFL season, or will a 'miracle' settlement suddenly take place? stridr69

join:2003-05-19

San Luis Obispo, CA stridr69 Member Re: TWC/CBS stalemate I hope it does. Then. Lets see the "fur" fly...

Rich7

@rr.com Rich7 Anon Now paying more for less service I just got my TWC bill and was credited $3.64 for TWC blocking out Showtime and The Movie Channel which I believe is not enough for missing out on Dexter and Ray Donovan. What makes things unacceptable is that my bill actually went up! Yes, I'm paying more now per month.

TWC raised my package rate by $3 per month and to add insult to injury also raised my cable modem charge from $3.95 to $5.99 per month. I called TWC and asked why would you raise the rate on my package if Im now getting less service? TWC responded with we can put you on a different package. To bring the price down I would now have to drop HBO. I also asked if the dispute with CBS ended would my rate go up again. TWC would not answer my question...Time to move to Satellite. your comment..

