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

D* Announces New Rates Starting 2/9/2010

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by riprecked, Dec 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jan 5, 2010 #481 of 849
    BubblePuppy

    BubblePuppy Good night dear Smoke... love you & "got your butt

    5,283
    5
    Nov 3, 2006
    Oh I don't know about that Stuart, many companies are continually grabbing us by our teats and milking us for all that they can. :D
     
  2. Jan 5, 2010 #482 of 849
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    Yes, DirecTV has a monopoly on NFLST. But nobody forced it to be that way, cable decided they didn't want to pay for it. It's not like cable service monopolies in most cities, where there are actual laws preventing competition.
     
  3. Jan 5, 2010 #483 of 849
    schlar01

    schlar01 Godfather

    335
    0
    Jul 16, 2007
    The NFL, in fact, did force it to be that way. They all had a chance to bid, but it was always going to be available to only 1 provider in each market. Cable companies rarely compete within markets in my experience. The NFL routinely signs monopolistic deals. EA's Madden used to compete with NFL2K, but the NFL decided to make that an exclusive deal, too. That exclusivity has largely created a fairly poor offering from EA. This year's was a little better, but without the competition pushing them, they have little incentive to TRULY improve the product.

    The best system for consumers is to have it available on multiple satellite and cable providers so that consumers have choice in where they can go and don't have to lose their NFL games. Right now the NFL and DirecTV just hold those games as hostages.

    Competition and choice is better for consumers.....PERIOD. There is debate on that topic.
     
  4. Jan 5, 2010 #484 of 849
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    When DirecTV placed their bid, cable was allowed the chance to match it. They declined. How did the NFL force anything?
     
  5. Jan 5, 2010 #485 of 849
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    They didn't...it went to the highest bidder, as you correctly stated several times now....;)
     
  6. Jan 6, 2010 #486 of 849
    babzog

    babzog Godfather

    273
    0
    Sep 19, 2006
    Primarily due to a virtual lack of a warranty. That and like you, I don't want to spend a huge sum of money for equipment that'll be obsolete before my commitment is up. That said, that equipment which I just paid $200 for, isn't mine. I can't ebay it when I'm finished with it, I can't give it to a neighbor, I have no way to recoup the $200 (unless I successfully negotiate credits with the service provider). What I should (only) be paying for is the service. DirecTV should be supplying the equipment to permit me access to the service for which I'm paying. If I want to buy the equipment, absolving DTV of ownership responsibilities, that's great for them (and probably not so great for me in the long term). If I don't want to buy it, then the onus should be solely on them to supply and support it.

    I understand this isn't the way equipment supply works in many industries (ie: cable modems are "rented", etc) and I've never agreed with those costs either. If the equipment isn't mine but you require me to house it and power it and connect it to my equipment in order to access the service, then you, not I, should be responsible for all aspects of it - costs, support, replacement, etc.

    I've heard this from local affiliates who cry that they're losing money. They claim that carriers (cable, satellite, etc) are "making money" from carriage of their signal and that they should be entitled to a share of that. If their business model is so flawed that they now require a brand new source of revenue in order to remain viable, then I submit that their business plan is seriously flawed.

    The customers of the carriers are just that - customers of the carriers, not of the individual stations. The cable, satellite and other carriers designed and built their networks, paid for their networks and install (into client premises) and maintain those networks. The affiliates, IMO, should be paying the carriers for access to the network and customer base, not the other way round (I know that's not the way it's being setup to work these days, it's just my opinion). If the affiliates can't survive without that revenue, then they should either charge more for advertising, find another revenue stream, or declare bankruptcy and close up operations.
     
  7. Jan 6, 2010 #487 of 849
    schlar01

    schlar01 Godfather

    335
    0
    Jul 16, 2007
    As I said before, it was always going to be ONE provider. Do you get that? It doesn't matter who the provider is............it still a monopoly. The NFL is known for requiring exclusive deals because it pushes the price higher.
     
  8. Jan 6, 2010 #488 of 849
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    But the "product" in this case is NFL Football which is available to the masses on the National Broadcast channels that require no subscription to any service. The Sunday Ticket is strictly an "out-of-market" specialty package that the NFL makes available with the agreement of those broadcasters. Considering that NFL games are carried every week on the OTA CBS, FOX, ABC networks and the widely available ESPN and NFL cable networks, I would hardly consider NFL broadcasts to be any sort of a monopoly. In truth, as far as the major sports go, I would consider the NFL to one of the most "non-exclusive" orginizations in that regard.
     
  9. Jan 6, 2010 #489 of 849
    schlar01

    schlar01 Godfather

    335
    0
    Jul 16, 2007
    Absurd. If that is the case, then the Ticket isn't needed at all, and the NFLST should be dissolved.

    The package itself is still a monopoly........that can't be argued..........PERIOD. End of discussion.

    The product is the NFLST, not the NFL as a whole. Just absurd.
     
  10. Jan 6, 2010 #490 of 849
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    I think that stretches the definition of "monopoly." It's an exclusive product. Exclusive products are not against the law. New Chevrolets are only sold through Chevrolet dealers. Insignia TVs are only sold at Best Buy. It's the same thing.
     
  11. Jan 6, 2010 #491 of 849
    Skyboss

    Skyboss Icon

    606
    4
    Jan 22, 2004
    electric company - Even
    gas company - Down
    water company - Even
    trash pick up - Even
    sewer service - NA - Included in Water
    phone company - Down
     
  12. Jan 6, 2010 #492 of 849
    Skyboss

    Skyboss Icon

    606
    4
    Jan 22, 2004
    The product is Sunday Ticket. It is a monopoly in that no-one else can provide it. If it were available on every service provider, it would be cheaper - a lot cheaper. Period. The NFL has anti-trust immunity which is why they can have an exclusive provider. DirecTV bids what it wants then shafts the consumer with enormous cost increases. Payback is coming.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2690171
     
  13. Jan 6, 2010 #493 of 849
    paulman182

    paulman182 Hall Of Fame

    4,841
    4
    Aug 4, 2006
    Maybe not. Somebody would have to pay for all the hardware necessary for all the different cable companies to pick it up and distribute it. It would be hugely expensive for the providers to get it up and running.

    And how many service providers would have the bandwidth to offer it?
     
  14. Jan 6, 2010 #494 of 849
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,602
    372
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    It's more of a monopsony than a monopoly.

    :lol: Nice article....only 3 years old. :rolleyes:
     
  15. Jan 6, 2010 #495 of 849
    schlar01

    schlar01 Godfather

    335
    0
    Jul 16, 2007
    TVs and cars are commodities with nearly identical replacement products from hundreds/thousands of other suppliers. Not exactly what I'd call a similar situation.
     
  16. Jan 6, 2010 #496 of 849
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    Skyboss, I must take issue with your use of the word "monopoly" here. While it's possible to stretch the definition of the word to include a commodity or service with a single provider, the connotation is that the single provider is the monopoly, and the product is the means by which they act as a monopoly.

    I agree that it's common parlance to say, "Edison has a monopoly on electricity," and equate that to "DIRECTV has a monopoly on Sunday Ticket." I do understand that. However, you're adding a negative shading to the perfectly legal practice of awarding exclusive contracts.

    While the term "monopoly" is in itself neutral, it's often perceived as a negative thing. Even when "legal monopolies" are allowed to exist, using the word "legal" implies that the government has allowed an otherwise unacceptable entity to exist.

    Remember also that the term "monopoly" implies that the monopolistic entity controls both production and distribution of something, which is not true in this case. The NFL is the producer and DIRECTV is the exclusive distributor.

    There are limitless cases where exclusive contracts are awarded to distributors, all perfectly legal. In my opinion there is no reason to claim, either by implication or outright, that DIRECTV's exclusive carriage of Sunday Ticket is illegal or unethical.

    Simply put, try substituting "exclusive" for "monopoly." It's a far less inflammatory term.
     
  17. Jan 6, 2010 #497 of 849
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    You are claiming that somehow Sunday Ticket is special and irreplaceable. To someone with an affinity for Chevrolets, there is no substitution that will suffice. I submit that Sunday Ticket is one form of sports programming and there are many other forms of sports programming.

    I get it, you like your NFL team, but I don't see it as an antitrust issue.
     
  18. Jan 6, 2010 #498 of 849
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    What you're saying contradicts all public statements by the parties involved. Do you have any proof to back this up, or is this just a conspiracy theory?
     
  19. Jan 6, 2010 #499 of 849
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,602
    372
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    To those claiming the ST is a monopoly and soooo bad...I pose this scenario:

    You've created a new hot sauce. This hot sauce is so good it puts all others to shame and people want to buy it, now! Then, a big company calls you and says, "We want your product in ONLY our restaurants & we'll pay you $4 billion to ONLY supply our firm. Deal?" Are you going to decline because, "I want my sauce available in every restaurant, where it'd be cheaper - a lot cheaper, & I'd never make near $4 billion."

    Hell no! You'd sign right up!
     
  20. Jan 6, 2010 #500 of 849
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    And that would be a legal, exclusive contract as I understand it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page