US Government Sues AT&T/DirecTV, Calls It 'Ringleader' of Collusion Scheme (arstechnica.com) 113
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.
Sports money (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 ...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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 prett
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Sports money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sports money (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:1)
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 w
Re:Sports money (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Sports money (Score:4, 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 [wikipedia.org] 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Library open 9-6, closed weekends (Score:2)
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.
Is zero access on Thu-Sun acceptable? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Days-long outages mean no timely replies (Score:2)
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.
Shelter and food are necessities (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, even McDonald's has free internet offered.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think they care?
Re: (Score:2)
You're the kind of guy who also thinks it's not censorship if it gets outsourced to private companies, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful that you do not fall into the broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But watching grown men (and women) move a ball from one end of a field to another must be worth millions of mere lives.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Market Competition (Score:5, 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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Several companies all making the same no-brainer decision isn't necessarily collusion.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Are seats going unsold? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think "$5/month for users who opt in" was an option that the network offered, but thanks for playing.
Missed opportunity (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, that would be a disaster for the Dodgers.
and a windfall for everyone else, but apparently the Dodgers are special
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
exclusively not allowed for sports also they want (Score:2)
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.
DoJ has lost its credibility (Score:1)
Lazy editors again messing up the headline (Score:2)
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.
"Lousy Dodgers" (Score:1)
Still true after all this time...
AT&T/DirecTV needs to buy out the cubs local r (Score:2)
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.
The fate of our national past time (Score:2)
I think it's about time our national past time became nationalized. This is just beyond bullshit.
Same thing happened in Houston (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just steam it (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Bankrupt the cable companies? Uhm, what do you think you're streaming over?
Imamgine a world without Net Neutrality. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both AT&T and Verizon need to have
Re: (Score:3)
That's sort of hard to do when ISPs charge home Internet customers extra for not having TV.
And that's why we need MORE MERGERS! (Score:3)
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...
Department of Justice (Score:2)