Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Government Sues AT&T/DirecTV, Calls It 'Ringleader' of Collusion Scheme (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the non-public dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Department of Justice today sued DirecTV and its owner, ATT, saying the satellite TV company colluded with competitors during contentious negotiations to broadcast Los Angeles Dodgers games. Dodgers games have been blacked out in much of Los Angeles because pay-TV providers have been unwilling to pay the price demanded by SportsNet LA, the Dodgers channel operated by the baseball franchise and Time Warner Cable. But the DOJ's antitrust division placed the blame for this situation on ATT and DirecTV. In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in California, it alleges that DirecTV was a "ringleader" in a coordinated scheme with cable companies Cox and Charter, according to a DOJ announcement. ATT completed its purchase of DirecTV in July 2015, but the complaint covers a dispute that began before the merger and continues to this day. The Dodgers channel owners offered carriage licenses to the pay-TV companies in January 2014, but the channel is still not available on DirecTV, Cox, or ATT's wireline TV service. (Games are now available on Charter, which purchased Time Warner Cable this year.) The lawsuit "alleges that DirecTV unlawfully exchanged competitively-sensitive information with Cox, Charter, and ATT during the companies' negotiations for the right to telecast the Dodgers Channel," the DOJ announcement said. "Specifically, the complaint alleges that DirecTV and each of these competitors agreed to and did exchange non-public information about their companies' ongoing negotiations to telecast the Dodgers Channel, as well as their companies' future plans to carry -- or not carry -- the channel." The companies used this strategy "to obtain bargaining leverage and to reduce the risk that they would lose subscribers if they decided not to carry the channel but a competitor chose to do so." The information these companies learned from each other "through these unlawful agreements" was a major factor in their decision not to carry the Dodgers channel, the complaint said. ATT said it will fight the lawsuit and blamed Time Warner Cable for charging unreasonably high prices. The asking price was reportedly about $5 a month per subscriber regardless of how many people watch the games.

113 comments

  1. Friday Friday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gotta get down on Friday
    Everybody's lookin forward to the
    Weekend weekend

  2. Sports money by Calydor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Imagine if all the money the world spends on sports would, for just one year, be funnelled into things like getting people out of poverty, creating jobs, curing cancer, building infrastructure ...

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    1. Re:Sports money by Luthair · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure I want the people watching it with more time on their hands, imagine the damage they could do to the world!

    2. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It does create jobs - for the hot dog vendors, ticket salesmen, parking attendants. It also pays for the athletes and so forth. Arguably, this is a better way to get someone out of poverty than handing them money.

    3. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd spend a lot of money and still wouldn't have those things.

      And team owners would still be rich.

    4. Re:Sports money by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Funny all that money has never been able to so much as let you watch the game you wanted on tv as TFA mentions they are often blacked out because someone wants a unreasonable fee for carriage.

      There needs to be a better way to negotiate carriage other than giving customers the shaft every time they can't reach an agreement.

      It does however seem to be enough that it's the equivalent of unlimited funds for any requests for sports related gov't building here.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    5. Re:Sports money by Gryle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imagine if all the money the world spends on $THINGIDONOTCAREFOR would, for just one year, be funnelled into $THINGSIDEEMMOREIMPORTANT...

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    6. Re:Sports money by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Now take that imaginary money, multiply it by 10,000,000 and you will get the annual military budget.

    7. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This same argument gets made about all kinds of things not named "national defense" and the amount usually comes up incredibly short in comparison to the lofty goals that people think can be done with the "saved" money.

      Oh, and in this particular case, you'll have a bunch of bored unrelaxed people that would be working on that stuff. You may not enjoy watching professional sports, but there are a whole lot of people that do. Just like you might be into something that a whole lot of other people aren't.

      Stop trying to be above it all.

    8. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Imagine if all the money the world spends on sports would, for just one year, be funnelled into things like getting people out of poverty, creating jobs, curing cancer, building infrastructure ...

      Imagine if all the money the US spends in its defense budget would go to Pensions, NASA, Healthcare, the VA, etc.... The problem isn't the money isn't there but that it is spent on the useless military which is mismanaged, wasteful and inefficient.

    9. Re:Sports money by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Imagine if all the money the world spends on sports would, for just one year, be funnelled into things like getting people out of poverty, creating jobs, curing cancer, building infrastructure ...

      Ah, given that charities are a well-known avenue for sheltering income from taxes, I'd say that there's quite a bit of sports money being funneled into the things you've listed here.

      Now, if you want to talk about REAL money and impact, take a look at what governments spend on war. Or the amount of money and resources spent on treating disease instead of curing it.

    10. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what you call the military budget is actually the defense budget. And there's a lot of things in the defense budget unrelated to military. Things like food subsides, GPS maintenance, everything DARPA funds, etc. Now if you disagree with these bits of spending, that's fine, but understand it's not military. And also, seeing that 10s of billions are spent on sports, you just said that the DOD budget is in the order of a hundred million billion, or $100,000,000,000,000,000 or in the order of 100 quadrillion. Hyperbole is not your friend.

    11. Re:Sports money by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

      It would be a drop in the bucket.

      Some hippie tried to claim if the U.S. used the money it spent on the military to educate kids it could do so for a year.

      Someone not stoned showed how the billions we spend every year would amount to a few cents per kid per year. A completely doable amount to educate someone for a year.

      The same with this nonsense. The amount of money spent on sports, worldwide, is insignificant to the amount of money needed to do what you want.

      Also, handing money over to people will not get them out of poverty. It will be a temporary fix because money doesn't grow on trees. All you're doing is conditioning them to expect something for nothing.

      The infrastructure part is a different story since that would create jobs as well as reduce costs for people in the long run.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    12. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah....we should start charging for air. All you're teaching them is breathing is free, as is air pollution.

    13. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, pay millions to the athlete and billions to the corporations and that little trickle for the hotdog vendor makes it all worthwhile. Money well spent...

    14. Re:Sports money by acoustix · · Score: 0

      A guy looked at my Corvette the other day and said I wonder how many people could have been fed for the money that sports car cost.

      I replied I am not sure, it fed a lot of families in Bowling Green, Kentucky who built it, it fed the people who make the tires, it fed the people who made the components that went into it, it fed the people in the copper mine who mined the copper for the wires, it fed people in Decatur IL. at Caterpillar who make the trucks that haul the copper ore. It fed the trucking people who hauled it from the plant to the dealer and fed the people working at the dealership and their families. BUT,... I have to admit, I guess I really don't know how many people it fed.

      That is the difference between capitalism and welfare mentality. When you buy something, you put money in people's pockets, and give them dignity for their skills.

      When you give someone something for nothing, you rob them of their dignity and self worth.

      Capitalism is freely giving your money in exchange for something of value.

      Socialism is taking your money against your will and shoving something down your throat that you never asked for.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    15. Re: Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmm, you do enjoy that stable western lifestyle with nice things right?

    16. Re:Sports money by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Imagine if all the money the world spends on what I myself won't willingly give up would, for just one year, be funnelled into things like getting people out of poverty, creating jobs, curing cancer, building infrastructure ...

      FTFY

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    17. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine if all the people who are employed because of professional sports, just for one year, had no job.

      And I'm not talking about the sports players. I'm talking about the guy with no high school education who is handing out beers.

      Imagine all the additional poverty, lack of jobs, additional people getting cancer from having to eat even worse food, and the infrastructure that would go to waste (arenas).

    18. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism is freely giving your money in exchange for something of value.

      Socialism is taking your money against your will and shoving something down your throat that you never asked for.

      Except unfettered capitalism all too often results in instabilities due to random events and of course the tragedy of the commons. Regulation is always perceived by some as being shoved down their throats wrongfully, but it's necessary to protect the well being of society from the readily anticipated harms of "total economic freedom."

      The biggest part of the point of civilization is to make life more fair; capitalism by itself all to often benefits those with more information at the expense of those with less information. Anything less is just trumped up economics and radical randian rhetoric.

    19. Re:Sports money by Calydor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Socialism is taking your money against your will and shoving something down your throat that you never asked for.

      You mean like paying five dollars a month for a sports channel you don't watch?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    20. Re: Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I love my Western Lifestyle built from bombs destroying people daily. The blood makes cool squishy sounds as it puddles and dries.

    21. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the money spent on those nice things you mentioned is dwarfed by the current military money pit: the f-35. How many TRILLIONS have we spent on that failure?

    22. Re:Sports money by acoustix · · Score: 1

      Socialism is taking your money against your will and shoving something down your throat that you never asked for.

      You mean like paying five dollars a month for a sports channel you don't watch?

      Show me where the government is taking $5 a month for this service. Cable/satellite is a choice, it's not required.

      I don't like channel bundling either. But don't confuse private enterprise with government mandates.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    23. Re:Sports money by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      But watching grown men (and women) move a ball from one end of a field to another must be worth millions of mere lives.

    24. Re:Sports money by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cable/satellite is a choice, it's not required.

      Satellite TV is a choice. But cable TV often isn't, as cable ISPs and fiber ISPs in the United States tend to tie it with their home Internet service, charging less per month for TV and Internet than for Internet alone. Or is home Internet service itself not a necessity to find and keep a job that pays a living wage in the United States?

    25. Re:Sports money by tepples · · Score: 1

      Be careful that you do not fall into the broken window fallacy.

    26. Re:Sports money by orgelspieler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Honestly, I know you are pointing out the absurdity of the argument, but you have a good point. There is a surprising number of things that people would be able to build consensus on. Depends on what we put in those columns. I think things like the war on drugs, or the TSA would be good examples. But it's hard to know for sure what people really would support if they knew all the facts.

      The problem with looking at luxury items as things that shouldn't have money spent on them is that it fails to take into account the knock-on effects. The NFL employs a bunch of people. Sure, the fatcats at the top make more than they should, but Joe Cameraman isn't getting millions of dollars, even if he's the best out there. The old lady making the crappy pizza at the concession stand is probably eeking out a meager existence. Should we be docking their pay for a whole year so that we can finally get rid of a disease or build a new library? I don't know, but it seems like most Americans would answer no.

      If we -- as a society -- wanted to cure cancer instead of watch football, people would be donating to M.D. Anderson instead of buying Texans tickets. We vote with our wallets every day.

    27. Re:Sports money by acoustix · · Score: 1

      Cable/satellite is a choice, it's not required.

      Satellite TV is a choice. But cable TV often isn't, as cable ISPs and fiber ISPs in the United States tend to tie it with their home Internet service, charging less per month for TV and Internet than for Internet alone. Or is home Internet service itself not a necessity to find and keep a job that pays a living wage in the United States?

      Having a TV is a choice. Having Internet access is a choice. Having a phone is a choice. They are "wants" and not "needs".

      No, Internet access is not a necessity.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    28. Re:Sports money by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Imagine if all the money the world spends on sports would, for just one year, be funnelled into things like getting people out of poverty, creating jobs, curing cancer, building infrastructure ...

      How about all the money the world spends on passive entertainment? Sure Hollywood would implode and TV sales would tank. But people would actually get outside and talk to one another, play some games, bond with friends and family.

    29. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Internet access is not a necessity.

      In this day and age you're a fool if you honestly believe that.

    30. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine if all the money the world spends on movie stars and others being paid tens/hundreds of thousands of $$ PER EPISODE to make just one of the mountains of tv series in existence, for just one year, be funnelled into things like getting people out of poverty, creating jobs, curing cancer, building infrastructure ...

      I follow only my local sports teams and hate being forced to pay for espn since I almost never watch it but focusing on sports as if it's the only insanely overpriced thing making tv expensive is tunnel vision. presumably you (figuratively speaking) happily watch inordinately expensive tv shows or ridiculously costly streamer originals without considering how much the rest of us who don't watch them pay to subsidize that form of entertainment.

    31. Re:Sports money by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      No, Internet access is not a necessity.

      In this day and age you're a fool if you honestly believe that.

      Work would be harder. That's where I first used it and found it very useful. Communication would slow down. People would have to actually talk to each other about what they had for lunch. Gossip will have to go back to audio as you won't be able to talk about someone when they're right there in front of you. No more cat videos. No more cat videos!

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    32. Re:Sports money by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I wonder at what point a service economy falls to the Broken Window?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    33. Re:Sports money by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Those insane amounts are paid by people who have outrageous amounts.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    34. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some hippie tried to claim if the U.S. used the money it spent on the military to educate kids it could do so for a year.

      They're way off. One year of military spending, not military "budget", would pay for about 10 years of college education and healthcare for the entire USA. The difference between budget and spending is the government is allowed to print more money to fund the military. Expenditures of war are not part of the budget. Since healthcare is about 20% of the government's spending and it only covers a small fraction of the entire population, you can do some ballpark estimates. Military spending is about 10x healthcare + university education for everyone, and healthcare to cover about 15% of the USA makes up about 20% of the budget. To cover 100% of the population, you'd need to increase healthcare spending by 5.7x.

      With healthcare now consuming 60% of the new budget that covers 100%. If 60% of the budget only represents 10% of military spending that puts military spending around 6x of the budget, or 83%. But this is of the new modified budget to cover 100% of people. Of our unmodified budget, military spending is closer to 90% based on these ballpark assumptions.

    35. Re:Sports money by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Listen to yourself.

      If billions of dollars per year amount to a few cents per kid per year, the number of kids in your country would be approaching TRILLIONS. You are not the world's largest ant colony, so knock it off!

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    36. Re:Sports money by Calydor · · Score: 1

      You're the kind of guy who also thinks it's not censorship if it gets outsourced to private companies, aren't you?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    37. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am being careful of it. Do you feel that any of the things I've listed as positives are actually net negatives? I'd like to think that all involved in a beer purchase (from the brewer all the way to the consumer) wanted the purchase to happen. I'd also consider that most, probably all of the activity at an arena is voluntary and positive for all involved.

      Do you feel that, in general, professional sports is something that many find negative?

      Typically the broken window fallacy covers things that people find provide a net negative value to at least someone who has to be involved in the transaction. I'm failing to see how asking someone to voluntarily(*) pay a fee to watch people play sports live for their personal entertainment, along with offering them goods and services that many of those attending will want to consume is a net negative. Heck, I can't even see how any of those things are even slightly negative.

      Seriously, please elaborate. I'm curious. Hopefully the argument isn't the old saw that passive entertainment makes one fat and dumb, because we could pretty much grind the economy to a halt with that idea.

      (*)-Typically you can watch and learn about sports games non-live for free. Your local library is a good resource for old sports games, especially their newspaper archive. Over the air television, as well as radio is a great resource, too.

    38. Re:Sports money by acoustix · · Score: 1

      No, Internet access is not a necessity.

      In this day and age you're a fool if you honestly believe that.

      Work would be harder. That's where I first used it and found it very useful. Communication would slow down. People would have to actually talk to each other about what they had for lunch. Gossip will have to go back to audio as you won't be able to talk about someone when they're right there in front of you. No more cat videos. No more cat videos!

      Work (paid work) provides Internet access. Personal life: not required.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    39. Re:Sports money by k6mfw · · Score: 2

      yeah right, as someone else pointed out millions to the athlete and billions to the corporations but trickles to the hotdog vendors. They may do alright along with many others working the stadium. The ones I think should be reasonably paid are NFL cheerleaders. They are professional dancers of quality class like Broadway, showdance, and open pro competitions. The auditions are tough, requires candidates with formal dance training, athletic endurance with ballet precision. It takes more than just being pretty, they put on a show for the audience with technique and presentation of lots of "wow" factor. They are not salaried like the football players, they do get a stiped for each game. However, they have to be employed (cannot be still living with parents) and being enrolled in college or raising a child is accepted as employment.

      I've been to a couple big games in my life, there is the new Levi Stadium in Santa Clara (where they had Superbowl 50) but to me it is as distance as Olympic stadiums. I've heard cost per seat is so high most are purchased by companies for their clients and employees. I could be wrong, I don't have much interest in football and don't keep up with the news (was it the Cleveland Lakers that won the Superbowl?).

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    40. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having life is a choice. What's your point?

    41. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The better off the cable/satellite providers are able to do in negotiations with teams the less money that is spent on watching sports.

    42. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you throw money towards so many free things that give people an incentive not to work those who choose not to work will inevitably end up producing more copies of themselves than the people choosing to work and pay for the whole scheme. Generation by generation the takers will eventually overwhelm the makers.

    43. Re:Sports money by tepples · · Score: 1

      Work (paid work) provides Internet access.

      Good luck finding a job in the first place. They ask for your email address and/or post job opportunities solely on websites.

    44. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, it's that all those poor people are so lazy and stupid and shitfless.

      I keep forgetting that.

    45. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, shithead: go read up on the social market economy built by capitalists in West Germany after WWII. It defanged the worst excesses of capitalism through effective business regulation and protection of unions, provides social assistance (health care, education, unemployment benefits, etc.) and is still 70 years later (even after it sucked up the bloated hole that East Germany was) the economic powerhouse of Europe (while the rest of the EU area chokes).

      As is so often the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

      Go read another book. The fact that you've only read one is obvious.

    46. Re: Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to go Mr. Strawman and ignorant of history.

    47. Re: Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cell phone and local library. I have known plenty of people without internet access at home. Even if their cell did have it they never used.

    48. Re: Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some to several of them are.

    49. Re: Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't you also include a picture? When I see this post all over Facebook, it always includes a picture.

    50. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internet access is a necessity. Sorry the world has changed around you.. Wake up and take a look around. Go tell the squirrels to get off your lawn old man..

    51. Re:Sports money by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      The Catholic Church has a similar problem. Apparently, Catholic Youth Organization sports promoters think that a better use of time on a Sunday morning is a sporting event instead of Mass.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    52. Re:Sports money by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      following up on this but with some baseball, a friend attended some minor league games and he said in some ways these are more fun than MLB games. Besides much lower costs, they had various activities for attendees between innings to keep everyone interested. He felt there was much more audience interaction than the majors as they don't have huge celebrity draw they then use other things to have people return to the next game.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    53. Re:Sports money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should an idiot, determine society's goal? Want to watch a guy throw a ball through a hoop. Get some other idiots together and go to it.

    54. Re:Sports money by acoustix · · Score: 1

      Work (paid work) provides Internet access.

      Good luck finding a job in the first place. They ask for your email address and/or post job opportunities solely on websites.

      You can't have an email address without having personal Internet access? Someone better tell my grandparents that. They've had email for a while without Internet access at home.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  3. Market Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But market competition like this is good for customers, drives up quality and drives down prices!

    1. Re: Market Competition by Entrope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Declining to charge every one of your customers $5+/month for a TV channel dedicated to one team sounds like a good way to hold down prices and do the right thing for the public.

    2. Re: Market Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you colluded with your competitors to fix the market. Same thing happened many years ago when Fox Sports launched FS West 2 and purposefully moved the Dodgers games to FSW2 which almost no cable companies carried. It took some time but in the end they all caved.

    3. Re: Market Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree with you. Five dollars a month for every customer even one too don't want it is ridiculous for one non-premium channel.

    4. Re: Market Competition by sethaw · · Score: 2

      The problem is by colluding with the other providers you prevent customers who want to pay an extra $5 from being able to see it. They end up having to pirate the games or go without watching. If some providers offered it and others didn't then the customer could look at two providers' prices and channels and choose which one is better for them. With collusion both providers will end up with the same content at the same price and you either hurt the customers who don't want to pay the extra $5 or you hurt the customers who want the channel.

    5. Re: Market Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't argue that. However, colluding with your competitors to ensure that they, too, will so decline is absolutely anti-competitive - and THAT is what the lawsuit is about.

    6. Re: Market Competition by gordguide · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with you. Five dollars a month for every customer even one too don't want it is ridiculous for one non-premium channel.



      You might be assuming the Dodgers organization actually wanted people to see the games at home. Maybe they want people to be forced to go to the stadium to see the games.

      Now, there is the principle that everything has a price, and it's in the team's best interest to try and determine what that price is. Maybe $5 a viewer is the price the Dodgers feel is reasonable, given they don't feel TV viewership is an unqualified win for them, and maybe they feel they are liable to lose what they really want ... bums in the seats.

      Whether it's reasonable to the viewer is not the only metric in play here.
    7. Re: Market Competition by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I don't think "$5/month for users who opt in" was an option that the network offered, but thanks for playing.

    8. Re: Market Competition by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Several companies all making the same no-brainer decision isn't necessarily collusion.

    9. Re: Market Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By illegally means of collusion. Lets not forget that point. They weren't sticking up for the public, they were collectively colluding together to force the price down on the Dodgers. This is non-capital practice that is illegal as it form monopolies through undisclosed partnerships.

      It has yet to proven that there was illegal collusion. Companies are not obliged to keep secret their belief that the other side's asking price is too high.

  4. Missed opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Dodgers could have used this to shake up the entire sports broadcast industry by signing a deal with online media company to offer online streaming to Los Angeles area. MLB itself runs a nation wide streaming service except for local games. I bet Netflix would have loved to sell to its customers in Los Angeles $5/mo add-on package. Local Dodgers games exclusively on Netflix! Hey they area have the geolock technology already built up. Old traditional cable companies would have lost their minds at that.

    1. Re:Missed opportunity by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Live streams are pretty different than a pre-recorded blob.

    2. Re:Missed opportunity by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uh, that would be a disaster for the Dodgers. Instead of getting a cut of every subscriber (of which probably 10% actually watch Dodger games), they would only get a cut of those who actually watch Dodger games.

    3. Re:Missed opportunity by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't have been anywhere close to the revenue.

      Which is more, $5/mo from all cable and satellite providers in the Southern California area, or $5/mo opt in from Dodgers fans in the Southern California area?

      The almighty dollar runs the show when it comes to channel carriage, and especially professional sports properties.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    4. Re:Missed opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they could just do away with the blackouts on MLB.TV and let people watch their local teams on the online streaming service that already exists. But MLB would never do that because the blackouts drive billion dollar sports network deals.

    5. Re:Missed opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh, that would be a disaster for the Dodgers.

      and a windfall for everyone else, but apparently the Dodgers are special

    6. Re:Missed opportunity by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Maybe the Dodgers should make themselves more interesting, then.

      I'm curious, are the ticket prices to watch a game at the stadium only paid by the 10% interested in watching the game, or by everyone?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    7. Re:Missed opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The Dodgers tried to pull a ESPN and screw over all the subscribers that don't give a fuck about sports. AT&T stopped them. Sadly it seems standing up as a group to someone trying to cheat you may be illegal.

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. DoJ has lost its credibility by richrz · · Score: 1

    As much as both of these wanker companies suck and their amalgam would logarithmically increase their suckiness, no eventuality would make them worse than the DoJ, they would have MORE credibility with me than the DoJ does at this moment (or the FBI). It'd be like chocolate cake suing spongecake and whip cream from becoming a twinkie cause it's fattening.

  7. exclusively not allowed for sports also they want by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    exclusively not allowed for sports also they want it to be in a basic package and not as an addon.

    Directv and others wanted to sell it as add-on package.

  8. Lazy editors again messing up the headline by burtosis · · Score: 1

    It should read:

    Us goverment finally sues Att/DirecTv, a typical TV provider company.

    Further, the US goverment said: As soon as we pull our head fully outta our ass we will sue Comcast next.

  9. "Lousy Dodgers" by mrbester · · Score: 1

    Still true after all this time...

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  10. Better check your math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world spending on military budgets seems to be under 2 trillion, so no.

    Just the payroll of MLB teams is in the billions. Add in the capital expenditures and other costs, well...

  11. Sports = Waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A steaming pile of excrement has more value to society as a whole than any and all sports combined.
    You can at least fertilize a field to grow more crops with said pile. All sports do is drain money and resources for something with absolutely no worth or benefit.
    How many lives are ruined by sports? More than all the drug and alcohol related injuries and deaths combined.

  12. AT&T/DirecTV needs to buy out the cubs local r by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    AT&T/DirecTV needs to buy out the cubs local rights / start a new RSN and maybe even the blackhawks local tv rights as well and then play some hardball with

    Comcast
    WOW!
    Mediacom
    RCN
    Dish
    Charter communications
    Time Warner Cable

    The small systems like
    Cass Cable tv
    Butler-Berner Mutual Telephone
    Clarence cablevision
    and others
    and others likely will take take it or lose a lot people to directv.

  13. Don't know which side I should cheer for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both parties are pretty unsavory. Almost like watching an argument between an Apple fanatic and an Android fanatic.

    1. Re:Don't know which side I should cheer for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Both parties are pretty unsavory? I'm assuming you're referring to the Dodgers not to the DoJ. The Department of Justice, by way of the FTC, Federal law and regulation acts on behalf of the citizenry; to state they are unsavory is antithetical to the point as it undermines your assertion as you are self identified with this unsavory element.

  14. The fate of our national past time by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I think it's about time our national past time became nationalized. This is just beyond bullshit.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  15. Same thing happened in Houston by yzf750 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comcast, the Astro's and the Rocket's started Comcast Sportsnet Houston about 3 years ago. Lots of local sports content, HD shows and of course all the games live. ATT, DirecTV and Dish all refused to carry the channel. The content gradually shrank to infomercials except when a game was on, then finally the channel went into bankruptcy. ATT then bought the remains and the same day launched Root Sports. Dish and DirecTV both picked the channel up. Interesting how it happened in LA too...

    1. Re:Same thing happened in Houston by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Ah, but did they actually communicate with each other about the decisions in advance? Its fine for no one to decide to buy the only question is whether they talked about it beforehand.

    2. Re:Same thing happened in Houston by yzf750 · · Score: 1

      Good point. I do not know, but based on the timing, it sounds like the same thing happened. Comcast wanted them to put it on everyone's tv package. The others wanted it only on a special sports tier.

    3. Re:Same thing happened in Houston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      considering dish and directv are *direct competitors* - and one very often picks up the slack when the other is missing a channel, to get that 'edge' even if only temporary.. they might get a few new customers they wouldn't otherwise get.... i'd say YES, there was collusion.. and it is still wrong, even when the victim is ::cough:: comcast.

    4. Re:Same thing happened in Houston by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if this is a non-published "business strategy" policy! There's probably an email trail too.

  16. Just steam it by ninthbit · · Score: 1

    All these channel networks should just abandon all the distribution networks and force the conversion to IP streaming and charge the customers directly. Then they get all the cash. Bankrupt the cable companies by making all their content disappear.

    1. Re:Just steam it by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Bankrupt the cable companies? Uhm, what do you think you're streaming over?

  17. who f*cking cares? it's *baseball* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who wants to watch baseball?? It's the most boring sport of all. You can watch for hours and see *nothing* happen!

  18. Imamgine a world without Net Neutrality. by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    This is why ISP's should not be allowed to be content providers. I realize this story concerns cable/satellite but the implications are the same. Disney originally had a special ESPN web site that only subscribers to a certain ISP could access. That is to say you couldn't even load the web site if you weren't connected to the internet from this ISP. This is the world without Net Neutrality and it is a very real possibility. I'm sure Comcast/TWC did in fact jack up the price to astronomical figures to make it unfeasible for DirecTV/Dish to afford the content and then played the victim when they tried to force the issue. I'm also sure AT&T probably did something they shouldn't have to do the forcing in the first place. We're just looking at different sides of the same coin here.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:Imamgine a world without Net Neutrality. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      "this story concerns cable/satellite"...well, yes and no. OFFICIALLY, Dish and AT&T hadn't merged yet. But a merger doesn't just spontaneously occur. This here is proof they had been working together more as a "single business entity" in some respects far earlier than the announced merger. If one had "total access" to their files and emails, there are probably dozens of other collusions between Dish and AT&T pre-merger too that no one will ever know about.

      Both AT&T and Verizon need to have their wireline, wireless, cable/content, and ISP services split up (again), and be prohibited from cross-industry consolidation forever. They will NEVER upgrade and significant portion to fiber, and instead are just pushing everyone into LTE "hotspot" systems so they can then gouge everyone with a 3gb cap + $10-$25 per gig over; but "zero rate" their own services.

  19. Cut the cord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop contributing to these companies. They're only getting bigger and have less competition as time goes on.

    1. Re:Cut the cord... by tepples · · Score: 2

      That's sort of hard to do when ISPs charge home Internet customers extra for not having TV.

    2. Re:Cut the cord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      regulate them as utilities.

      too funny, had to show it: captcha is AMORAL

  20. And that's why we need MORE MERGERS! by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

    See, if AT&T already owned Time Warner, there'd be no issue here -- instead of "illegal collusion", this would just be a responsible and well-run company maximizing value for its shareholders.

    Now, where did I leave that sarcasm tag...

  21. Are seats going unsold? by tepples · · Score: 1

    maybe they feel they are liable to lose what they really want ... bums in the seats

    I thought the Dodgers would want people willing to buy overpriced concessions more than "bums" (vagrants). Or are the Dodgers really failing to sell out all seats?

  22. Department of Justice by skelly33 · · Score: 1

    Of all the injustices in this country... missing the game may be "upsetting" for a select few, but there are actual crimes in progress with victims who truly suffer as a result. [opinion]This seems a shameful misappropriation of DoJ resources. They should be tackling predatorial baking practices, imbalanced housing laws, broadband internet pricing collusion (hey, remember when DSL cost $15/month? You can't even connect to the Internet for less than $60 these days...), prescription drug pricing, insurance scams - the list goes on and on...[/opinion]

  23. So What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say so what? Essentially allowing the creation of a virtual monopoly for negotiation purposes to compete with a real monopoly (baseball).

    Guess what folks. The worse off the cable/satellite providers do in negotiations the more consumer end up paying to watch their baseball.

    In this case I side with the cable/satellite providers.

  24. Shelter and food are necessities by tepples · · Score: 1

    Or is home Internet service itself not a necessity to find and keep a job that pays a living wage in the United States?

    No, Internet access is not a necessity.

    Shelter and food are necessities. Would you agree? If so, how should a U.S. resident with no Internet access go about finding and keeping a job that is enough to pay for rent and food, in particular not a part-time, minimum-wage or near-minimum-wage job in the unskilled service industry?

    1. Re:Shelter and food are necessities by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      In the US, even McDonald's has free internet offered.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:Shelter and food are necessities by tepples · · Score: 1

      Don't you think the restaurant would catch on if one MAC address comes to a particular restaurant every weekday and visits webmail and a bunch of job hunting sites for a couple hours?

    3. Re:Shelter and food are necessities by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Do you think they care?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  25. Library open 9-6, closed weekends by tepples · · Score: 1

    The cell phone is useless if you have run out of data transfer allowance for the month or if you have switched to a flip phone in order not to be forced by your carrier into buying a data plan to begin with. The local library is useless if its doors are closed for the evening or weekend whenever you are off the minimum-wage or nearly so job that provides no facility for Internet use by employees but at which you are working to make ends nearly meet while searching for a job that pays a living wage.

    1. Re:Library open 9-6, closed weekends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? The library in my town opens from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm M-F and 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekends. Do you really work so many hours at your barista gig that you can't make it down to the library after or before work? Guess you should rethink that degree in film appreciation and post modern philosophy.

  26. on the concept of 'Ringleader' of Collusion Scheme by qfman · · Score: 0

    how about the drug companies, several that have an extended coverage insulin that differ only in the dispenser. They are all charging ~35X the cost of regular insulin but the medication really helps with blood sugar control. I suspect they have all messed with the regular insulin to force diabetics onto the new ~35X more expensive insulin.

    --
    They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
  27. Is zero access on Thu-Sun acceptable? by tepples · · Score: 1

    The library in my town opens from 8:00 am to 9:00 pm M-F and 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekends. Do you really work so many hours at your barista gig that you can't make it down to the library after or before work?

    Let me list the hours of the branch within walking distance of my house:

    Monday through Wednesday: 9 AM to 9 PM
    Thursday and Friday: 9 AM to 6 PM
    Saturday: Closed (Saturday before last Monday in May through Saturday before first Monday in September); 9 AM to 6 PM (rest of year)
    Sunday: Closed

    So if someone is working the equivalent of two part-time jobs to make ends meet, it's easy to construct a plausible work schedule in which he can't visit the library at 9 AM and catch the bus to work on time nor leave work and catch the bus to the library before 6 PM. This means from Thursday through Sunday, someone who relies on Internet access at the public library would be completely disconnected.

  28. Government representing special interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So let me get this straight. A sports team demands a fortune for the right to broadcast their games. The broadcasters think the price is to high and instead of caving in they grow a pair and say "no deal". The sports team decide that their god-given right to have broadcasters kowtow to their demands go off to the DOJ crying like a bunch of snivelling ninnies. And the government - acting as the attack dog for the overpaid sports team sues the broadcasters. And on what basis? You're allowed to walk away from the deak or set your own counter-offer but you're not allowed to tell anyone. In other words, the sports team is allowed to use the prisoner's dilema to reinforce their extortionate demands, but you're not allowed to stop them.

  29. Days-long outages mean no timely replies by tepples · · Score: 1

    Without home Internet access, you can't reply to email in a timely manner, especially when the local public library keeps banker's hours on Thursday and Friday and is closed on Saturday and Sunday.