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.

66 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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!
    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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...

    9. 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.
    10. 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=-
    11. 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
    12. 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.

    13. 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?

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

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

    15. 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.

    16. 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
    17. 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.

    18. 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
    19. 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
    20. 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
    21. 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=-
    22. 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=-
    23. 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
    24. 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
    25. 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.

    26. 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.
    27. 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
    28. 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
  2. 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.

  3. 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: 1

      Uh, that would be a disaster for the Dodgers.

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

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. "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!"
  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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 l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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?

  15. 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.

  16. 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...

  17. 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?

  18. 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.

  19. 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]

  20. 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.

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

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

  22. 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?
  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.