Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Friday November 04 2016, @02:32AM   Printer-friendly
from the sporting-decision dept.

The Department of Justice today sued DirecTV and its owner, AT&T, 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 AT&T and DirecTV. In a complaint filed in US 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.

"Dodgers fans were denied a fair, competitive process when DirecTV orchestrated a series of information exchanges with direct competitors that ultimately made consumers less likely to be able to watch their hometown team," Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Sallet said in the DOJ announcement. The lack of a competitive negotiation process is especially bad for consumers in a market like cable television, where customers have "only a handful of choices," he said.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @02:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @02:35PM (#422482)

    Though I think the airwaves ought to serve the people, I'm not too convinced of the value of a fucking sports event to preempt the owner's rights to them.

  • (Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday November 04 2016, @03:21PM

    by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday November 04 2016, @03:21PM (#422494)

    Though I think the airwaves ought to serve the people, I'm not too convinced of the value of a fucking sports event to preempt the owner's rights to them.

    Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage [gnu.org]

    When we are talking about the efficient use of the spectrum, careful definitions matter. I am not sure what "owner's rights" mean in this context. I suspect you mean the "copyright holder's rights", hence the RMS link.

    Though, I think I have found a backronym for IP that actually correctly describes how it is all related: Industrial Protectionism.

  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 04 2016, @04:35PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday November 04 2016, @04:35PM (#422523)

    If you don't watch your circus, you can't have any bread!
    How can you have any bread if you didn't what your circus?

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 04 2016, @08:19PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 04 2016, @08:19PM (#422601) Journal

    You get a nod of agreement from me. I simply don't have the inclination to watch any sporting event. Football, baseball, golf, nascar, you name it - I just can't be bothered with them. I see little if any value in them. BUT - very nearly all of our fellow Americans - and Europeans too - are engrossed in sports. The go bug-fuck nuts over their favorite teams winning. So, it's apparently important to MOST AMERICANS.

    Meanwhile, the corporations are fleecing the masses with these idiot "blackouts". Basically, "You've got to pay what we demand, or you can't watch!" Fek the corporations.