Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by jtn, Oct 31, 2007.
It is right next to the section that states he has the right to a wide stance.
It's becoming less expensive to eat a Big Mac or dollar menu item as opposed the high cost at the grocery stores lately. !rolling
So, Let see where we are on this:
The NFL owns the rights to the games.
The NFL and DirecTV entered in to a contract that lets DirecTV have exclusive distribution for out of market games. At the time of the contract others had a chance to bid on it but either did not or did not meet or reach DTV's bid
Some people here don't like that fact that they have to pay to see out of market games.
Those same people appear to want the government to do something for them so they don't have to pay (or pay much less).
The government has no standing in this matter. Regardless of how unfair this might seem unless someone can convince the Justice Department to go after the NFL and DirecTV on Sherman Act violations, nothing will change.
The mere fact that the the NFL is a monopoly is not enough. Read the Sherman act, They have to have used that monopoly in an illegal way (they haven't). No amount of posturing by U.S. Senators can change this.
The NFL owns the rights and they have exercised those rights as they saw fit.
Yes and No... sort of.
You are correct that the mere act of being a monopoly is not illegal, and there has to be some violation of the Sherman Act.
However, the Sherman Act is so vague that if the courts decide you sneezed in the wrong manner and determine it to be an "unfair method of competition", then they can nail you.
In this case, though, you'd have a hard time proving that the exclusive contract was an unfair method of competition. After all - the NFL is competing with no other footbal league. And DirecTV is in direct competition with cable companies and Dish Network, and they're surviving just fine without NFL-ST, so you'd be hard pressed to prove a Sherman Act Violation. And, beyond that, DirecTV would argue that the exclusive contract has a 'legitimate business justification', which is one of the criteria used to determine whether some act is unfair or unreasonable... Obviously, DirecTV is out to make money, and if they can secure an exclusive contract, then that's good for business, and it doesn't prohibit any of their competitors from staying in business.... All in all, very hard to do anything with regards to anti trust violations in this particular scenario.
Not impossible because of the vagueness of the Sherman Act, but I don't think you'll find an attorney or court around who'd want to attempt this.
It's the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. For that matter, Congress has the right to regulate just about anything, unless it is something that is prohibited by the Constitution, like free speech rights.
The public airwaves are controlled by the FCC under federal laws passed by Congress. Same for the spectrum used by satellite TV. Where did you get the idea that Congress doesn't have the authority to intervene in contracts between satellite companies and content providers?
To "legislate and regulate" is Congress's job... When you let private companies have more power than that of the elected state, you have a system of government called Fascism. A Conservatives wet dream....
Simply not true. Read my last post. The federal government does have the legal authority to regulate this area as it sees fit. An example would be the federal law passed in the 1970s that outlawed blackouts of sold-out NFL games. That law overrode contracts between the NFL and the TV networks. Another example is the 1996 telecom act, which empowered the FCC to override homeowners' association covenants that prohibited installation of satellite dishes.
Whether you agree with it or not, there is nothing to prevent Congress from regulating how programming is sold to satellite and cable companies, and that includes whether the NFL can sell exclusive rights to its games.
You are correct, Congress does. An individual U.S. Senator does not. Someone brought up the fact that John Kerry inserted himself in what was a legal contract regarding MLB. Senator Kerry used more than just his "bully pulpit" in this matter but nowhere in the Constitution does it given any individual senator the right to interfere is what is otherwise a legal transaction.
The NFL - DTV contract does not fall under FCC jurisdiction at all (although maybe the FCC would like it to). The FTC, possibly and maybe the Justice Department if it is a violation of the Sherman Act. Read what I said. the government has no standing unless someone can can convince Justice that this deal is a violation of the Sherman Act
I agree Congress does that have right but an individual U.S. Senator does not. I was referring to when John Kerry inserted himself into contract negotiations with MLB.
Heinz ketchup versus DirecTV :hurah:
Actually, it's Heinz ketchup
Now if it were a DIRECTV receiver vs. a bottle of Heinz ketchup .. Hmmm. I think the ketchup might win that one.
Is this a political problem with Kerry or are you saying in general that politicians shouldn't speak out on issues that they believe my affect their constituents?
This has been going on forever. Ed Mees as Attorney General threatened Southland Corp. (7-11) if they didn't stop selling Playboy (They stopped). Actually, Mees broke the law by putting his demand on official letterhead, but that's another issue.
No way. Should they offer it to cable networks, they can say good-bey to the billions FOX and CBS are paying them.
Thanks for the correction Doug :lol:
Being a Huge and Loyal Boston fan living in MPlS I would rather them open it up where as you just purchase your teams subscription. I would love to be able to just watch all Boston/ New England Games and listen to the home team announcers. although I have had ST every year I would tend to suscribe to more of the others if it would work that way.
SD is what got me to sign up for Directv in 1994 and that's why they pay the big bucks
We have a loser.
Godwin's law proves itself yet again.
Kerry did much more than speak out. Public figures can and should use their "bully pulpit" any way they see fit. I have a problem with any public figure overstepping their bounds. Kerry was wrong and in your example Ed Meese was wrong.
Back to the topic at hand, the NFL - DTV deal is legal unless someone can convince Justice or the FTC otherwise. If it is illegal then "Nail the Suckers!"
Have we beaten this enough already?
There is only 1 problem about Subscribing to one teams broadcasts. You Living in Minnesota whenever the Boston Red Sox or Patriots were playing @ The Minnesota Twins or Minnesota Vikings respectively, the Minnesota team wouldn't like you watching the Boston Telecast. They want you watching the Minnesota Call of the game. As a Chicago Fan I wish I could only subscribe to the Cubs/White Sox/ and Chicago Bears NFL Games but we can't do that. It's a way for the league to get your money by using the line (You must watch the game from the home teams network from where you live) Even though for NFL games both teams use either Fox or CBS on Sunday Afternoons. It Sucks. I know I know. But that's just the way it's been and it looks like it's gonna stay that way for a while.
OK .. folks .. we are getting really close to political talk in this thread. Talking about the law is OK, but we must leave politics out of the discussion. This is a warning to everyone .. Thank You.
I apologize, Doug. I just wasn't sure if JWD believed that any politician would have been wrong in doing what Kerry did or it was just an issue with Kerry himself. I should have just sent a PM.
He explained his viewpoint.
I won't continue that line of questioning