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