OpinionOpinion L.A.

Time Warner -- fighting the good fight? -- gets sued anyway

Laws and LegislationTechnology IndustryCrime, Law and JusticeSatellite and Cable ServiceTime Warner Cable Inc.

The folks at CBS headquarters had to be celebrating Thursday after three Time Warner Cable customers filed a would-be class-action lawsuit against the pay-TV operator for dropping CBS and Showtime.

The complaint by three subscribers in Southern California accuses Time Warner of fraud, among other illegal acts, because it continues to charge customers for channels it's not transmitting and has not provided rebates for the programming they've missed.

It's possible that Time Warner could have avoided this fight had it been more proactive about rebates. The longer the impasse dragged on, though, the greater the chance that consumers (or rather, the plaintiff's bar) would vent their anger and frustration in court. And the cable company is the logical target, not CBS, considering that the broadcaster's signal is still available, for free, over the air.

Public sentiment also seems to be running against Time Warner. Witness all the references to the cable company blacking out CBS, as if the network would be happy to let Time Warner continue retransmitting its signal without a contract. That's partly a result of CBS' public relations efforts, including its crafty offer to let Time Warner continue carrying Showtime, a channel whose fees apparently aren't in dispute.

(Yes, I know, CBS is blocking Time Warner's broadband customers from watching full episodes of its shows at CBS.com. That's ... aggressive. What's worse, the blockade also extends to broadband customers who don't take cable, who live in cities not covered by the dispute with CBS or who subscribe to a non-Time Warner Internet service provider that leases space on Time Warner's system. But it's hard to sue someone for denying you free content that it's still making available for free in another format.)

It's an open question whether the lawsuit will linger on after the blackout ends, assuming it does in relatively short order. And if the plaintiffs do continue to pursue damages, Time Warner may argue that its terms of service require the dispute to go to arbitration -- where class actions are not an option.

The bottom line, though, is that the lawsuit only adds to the pressure on Time Warner to cave in to CBS' demand for higher retransmission fees, which the cable company will then dutifully pass on to its customers.

I get it: Many Time Warner subscribers are angry about being cut off from some of their favorite programs. The anger is likely to grow when the NFL's regular season begins Sept. 8 and Time Warner customers have to trudge to a sports bar to watch the games instead of tuning in from the comfort of their homes. But Time Warner is ostensibly fighting for lower programming costs and the right to transmit CBS' shows digitally, two things that would benefit customers. So if I were one of those customers, I wouldn't be trying to make Time Warner buckle. Not yet, at least.

ALSO:

Jesse Lee Peterson, tea'd off in South L.A.

Feinstein and Durbin: How to close Gitmo

What did Edward Snowden get wrong? Everything

Follow Jon Healey on Twitter @jcahealey and Google+

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
Laws and LegislationTechnology IndustryCrime, Law and JusticeSatellite and Cable ServiceTime Warner Cable Inc.
  • CBS tops ratings, but don't declare victory over Time Warner yet
    CBS tops ratings, but don't declare victory over Time Warner yet

    Much to the chagrin of 3.2 million Time Warner Cable customers, Nielsen reported Tuesday that CBS finished on top of the ratings for the week of Aug. 5-11. That's the first full week the network was blacked out on Time Warner's systems in Los Angeles, New York, Dallas and a few...

  • Let CBS and Time Warner Cable duke it out
    Let CBS and Time Warner Cable duke it out

    The longer CBS and Time Warner Cable continue to fight over retransmission fees, the more calls there will be for government to intervene on behalf of Time Warner customers who've been cruelly denied their right to watch "Under the Dome" and "Ray Donovan."

  • The real losers in CBS/Time Warner dispute
    The real losers in CBS/Time Warner dispute

    Viewers are suffering the collateral damage in the battle between two huge corporations. But with alternative means of viewing increasingly available and tempting to consumers, the two should compromise fast.

  • Grooveshark loses copyright infringement case, but breaks no new legal ground
    Grooveshark loses copyright infringement case, but breaks no new legal ground

    Add Grooveshark to the list of online music sharing platforms that ran afoul of the courts not because its users were infringing songs, but because its employees were.

  • Saving a dog, L.A. freeway style

    On the I-5 Freeway on Tuesday, just north of Commerce, the northbound traffic was finally starting to pick up when the silver Mercedes came to a dead stop in front of me in the fast lane. And then the driver got out. Oh, great, I thought. What looniness have we got here?

  • No more Mr. News Guy -- L.A. anchor Kent Shocknek signs off
    No more Mr. News Guy -- L.A. anchor Kent Shocknek signs off

    Notice something missing from your TV news this week? It's Kent Shocknek, who spoke to The Times two days before signing off Friday, after 31 years in the anchor chair on two stations, KNBC and KCBS/KCAL. He so fits the role, he got anchor cameos in the movies. His tenure, one of the...

  • California's initiative process could become more enlightened under this new law
    California's initiative process could become more enlightened under this new law

    It turns out that a legislative hearing can be simultaneously enlightening and pointless. Take, for example, Monday's hearing in Sacramento on Proposition 46, the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot to increase the cap on medical malpractice damages, and Thursday's on Proposition 47, the...

  • No on Proposition 45
    No on Proposition 45

    Angered by rapidly rising premiums for automobile insurance, voters approved Proposition 103 in 1988 to give the state insurance commissioner the power to veto unreasonable rate hikes for auto policies. Now, after years of premium hikes in health insurance, voters have the chance to extend...

Comments
Loading