1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sen. Kerry to Fight DIRECTV 'Extra Innings'

Discussion in 'Sports Programming and Events' started by Earl Bonovich, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. Feb 2, 2007 #41 of 102
    iceman2a

    iceman2a Icon

    545
    0
    Dec 30, 2005
    Hudson, FL...
    This is different than the NFL or any other sports pkg!
    Because MLB has an "anti-trust" exemption, granted by congress, they are subject to scrutiny by congress on just about anything it does!
    I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the way it is!
     
  2. Feb 2, 2007 #42 of 102
    Kash76

    Kash76 Legend

    206
    0
    Aug 9, 2002
    Kerry is a tool.
     
  3. Feb 2, 2007 #43 of 102
    n3ntj

    n3ntj Hall Of Fame

    5,764
    11
    Dec 18, 2006
    Lancaster,...
    Yeah, I thought competition was supposed to be good for the consumer.
     
  4. Feb 2, 2007 #44 of 102
    cebbigh

    cebbigh Icon

    517
    0
    Feb 27, 2005
    Antitrust exemption is a big thing for baseball. They want to make exclusive deals like this, fine. Just give up the exemption. Otherwise be expected to have legislative reaction to deals that are not in the best interests of the majority.
     
  5. Feb 2, 2007 #45 of 102
    carlsbad_bolt_fan

    carlsbad_bolt_fan Icon

    798
    16
    May 18, 2004
    Carlsbad, CA
    Bush is a shrub. :lol:
     
  6. Feb 2, 2007 #46 of 102
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member

    8,687
    38
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    And Molly Ivins is dead. :)
     
  7. Feb 2, 2007 #47 of 102
    purtman

    purtman Hall Of Fame

    1,951
    0
    Sep 19, 2006
    Very, very true.
     
  8. Feb 2, 2007 #48 of 102
    Hound

    Hound Icon

    891
    0
    Mar 20, 2005
    Unless the antitrust exemption is repealed, baseball can do whatever it wants
    with deals like an exclusive with Directv. Kerry cannot do anything except hold
    hearings and complain. A repeal of the antitrust exemption would have to
    pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President.
     
  9. Feb 2, 2007 #49 of 102
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member

    8,687
    38
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    And Bush is NOT going to even consider a repeal of the exemption. No how, no way.

    This is nothing more than a bunch of bloviating by a has-been of a politician who wants to keep his otherwise useless name in the public eye.
     
  10. Feb 2, 2007 #50 of 102
    snickerrrrs

    snickerrrrs Registered User

    17
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    I hear the Democrats were involved in the design of the R15. :D
     
  11. Feb 2, 2007 #51 of 102
    Kash76

    Kash76 Legend

    206
    0
    Aug 9, 2002
    I like that one!
     
  12. Feb 3, 2007 #52 of 102
    TheKnobber

    TheKnobber Cool Member

    39
    0
    Dec 28, 2006
    Your argument makes no sense. You both argue for and against the same issue in the same comment! Either Monopolies are bad and you are against DirectTV owning the rights to broadcast all the sports and deny others this right, or Monopolies are good and you will love the fact that DirectTV can charge you whatever they can since they are the only source for the sports you want to watch? You can't have it both ways.

    I personally have always favored the free market approach. That is why we have anti monopolistic laws in this country. It doesn't matter if you are a republican, democrat, or scientologist. If one company gains exclusive control over a resource, you will get gouged on price.
     
  13. Feb 3, 2007 #53 of 102
    Buzz112

    Buzz112 Mentor

    49
    0
    Jan 30, 2007
    I recently watched a special on the life and theories Prof. Milton Friedman, Nobel economist from the University of Chicago. In a nutshell, he said that every time government gets involved they suppress the natural market forces and make things worse, not better. A lesson that applies not only to health care, but to TV programing as well. If you are interested, PBS is re-broadcasting the special this week end. Check your local listings or go to http://www.freetochoosemedia.org/production/POC/docs/poc_broadcast_info.pdf
     
  14. Feb 3, 2007 #54 of 102
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002

    I had not heard that. But it took Rupert Murdoch to try to sell it to someone.
     
  15. Feb 4, 2007 #55 of 102
    JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    A true "free market" allows for the existance of monopolies.

    However, DirecTV is not a monopoly on any of these sports. Even if they get the EI package, it is but a small subset of baseball viewership. It doesn't preclude local broadcast, network deals (TBS, WGN, etc..). So, it doesn't create a monopoly in any way shape or form. It only creates a nitch package...bundling.

    The NFLST is exactly the same. There are many, many, many games broadcast outside the ST program.

    I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be nice to have all packages available on all media. But that possibility is rediculously untenable. So, the sports leagues go after bundle dollars on the side.

    Quit the "monopoly this monopoly that" arguments. They don't apply. It might be termed unfair marketing tactics. But even that is a far stretch. This is mostly political sabre rattling of the dumbest kind.
     
  16. Feb 4, 2007 #56 of 102
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member

    8,687
    38
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    A monopoly would, indeed, mean DirecTV and no one else broadcasts ALL MLB games. Since this isn't happening, there is no monopoly.
     
  17. Feb 4, 2007 #57 of 102
    shippert

    shippert Cool Member

    16
    0
    Aug 11, 2003
    Of course, "government" is already intimately involved with both the business of satellite TV and of Major League Baseball. From regulating distant locals to licensing satellite spots and frequencies, to the anti-trust exemption and public funding for sports facilities, neither industry could function as they currently do without a great deal of involvement from the government.

    Thus, if the government decides that the actions of these companies are unfriendly to the consumer, it really does have some justification for either addressing that behavior legally or withdrawing the various subsidies it provides, if it so chooses.
     
  18. Feb 4, 2007 #58 of 102
    bluedogok

    bluedogok Godfather

    260
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    This is what ALL politicians do........they are nothing more than tools of the corporations that own them.

    There are many independent leagues out there with no ties to the MLB.

    Because this only afects out-of-market broadcasts, there is nothing in conflict with the anti-trust exemption. Now if ALL game broadcasts were restricted to EI, then there would be a case but since all of the teams have local broadcasting agreements outside of EI and are subjct to the terms and conditions of the local team, how can that be in violation? The teams control their in-market contracts, not the MLB so it is different than the NFL where the league controls the TV rights.
     
  19. Feb 5, 2007 #59 of 102
    WolfClan Dan

    WolfClan Dan Patiently Impatient

    191
    0
    Jan 10, 2007
    I take it John Kerry is a either a cable subscriber, or a recipeint of funds from a cable company.

    Its a free market. Sheesh.
     
  20. Feb 5, 2007 #60 of 102
    dodge boy

    dodge boy R.I.P. Chris Henry

    4,231
    0
    Mar 31, 2006
    Just standing up for free markets! Do you like the price of NFLST?
     

Share This Page