Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

US Gov’t Sues AT&T/DirecTV, Calls it “Ringleader” of Collusion Scheme

posted by martyb on Friday November 04 2016, @02:32AM   Printer-friendly
from the sporting-decision dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
US Gov’t Sues AT&T/DirecTV, Calls it “Ringleader” of Collusion Scheme | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 7 comments | Search Discussion
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: 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.