Viacom should not pull their channels just because custermers should not pay more on their bill

I'll begin with my argument and then I'll move to refuting Pro'smy caseMy argument is a simple one, so I'll keep it quick (it doesn't hurt that I can only type for five minutes without having to get off due to a virus). In America, we do our best to maintain a capitalistic free market. In this market, businesses can set their own prices and do their best to succeed. Naturally, if they raise prices too high, nobody will buy them due to the basic principle of supply and demand, and so skyrocketing prices are rare. However, this also comes with the businesses having to enforce their prices on their own as well. Therefor, if a company such as Viacom chooses to raise their prices, it is up to them to make sure that the people they are supplying pay these prices. This is why Viacom is justified in pulling their product from the DirectTV distributer when it refuses to pay Viacom's rates, much like evicting a tenant for not paying rent.Thus, as I have stated, Viacom is perfectly justified in enforcing its prices by pulling shows from those that refuse to pay them. Because this is a justified act, the statement "Viacom should not pull their channels just because custermers should not pay more on their bill" is false, and the resolution is negated. my opponent's case I will address my opponent's case in three different sections as he has listed them1.) There are two flaws with my opponents arguments here. First, according to Direct TV itself, 17 channels were dropped, not 26 [1]. This isn't that big of a deal, but it's important that voters get a clear and fair picture of the issue at hand. Second, Direct TV is not "completely innocent", as it refused to pay Viacom for its new rates. The fault is not solely on Direct TV, but it is in no way completely innocent as my opponent claims. Furthermore, he does not back up this claim with any evidence, arguments, or anything really, so it is just an empty claim that doesn't stand in the round.2.) My opponent claims that Viacom took the Daily Show and Colbert Report off of Hulu and other internet sites, and that this is wrong. However, Viacom is completely within its rights to remove them if and when they please as they are the provider that broadcasts the show. Furthermore, This argument has no weight because Viacom actually allowed the two shows to be watched on the internet shortly after they aired their first episodes after the break[2]. So not only was Viacom within its rights, they have already remedied the problem, and so this attack does not stand in the round.3.) In this section, my opponent directly attacks Viacom, stating that they are "taking viewers hostage" and put the blame solely on DirectTv just so they can lose money. However, they simply cut DirectTV off from the shows they refused to pay for, just like the electric orl water company would cut off services when people refuse to play. Furthermore, their main goal in broadcasting the commercials in question is not to keep DirectTV from making money as my opponent suggested, but to make money. Just like when Geico tries to take customers from All State.At the end of my case I'll finish with an attack on my opponent's source. I took the liberty of checking it out, and it is a site paid for, made by, and hosted by Direct TV with the sole purpose of discrediting Viacom in the DirectTV-Viacom feud. It is made less for information, and more for propoganda, and as such it should not be regarded as a valid source of information.Works Cited:1.) http://news.directv.com...2.) http://www.wptv.com...