Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by p4594spa, Feb 11, 2013.
I'm thinking there are a lot of posters here that would disagree with you.
You know this is the smartest quote yet. I am happy that living in Atlanta I do not have to pay for sports programs for the people in new york and other areas.
And if one wants other programming that is only in the package that contains the RSNs?
I always think of TV delivery services as effective monopolies. The fact that one has a very few choices does not change the effective result.
Maybe a better way to put it is illegal bundling/tying. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce):
Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service.
It's time someone started a class-action suit against this BS. And no, I can't, since I'm not in an affected area. But taking out this trash will help to cleanup other problems.
If a class-action suit would be brought (doubtful). It would be against the companies that own the content...they are the ones that specify channel placement in their contracts with the TV providers.
Then that is your choice. A "monopoly" leaves no other choices for the consumer. You may not like the choice you have in picking a package without RSN's, but that is what you must do to if you don't want the RSN fee and live in a zip code that has it.
This might have been true in the 1980's. But now most customers have 3 choices in their area for TV service: cable, satellite, telco.
And they are all just middlemen. Content providers force the same deals on all of them and therefore all consumers.
Those affected should consider filing a complaint with the FTC: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov
The deals are different for each. Placement, carriage fee, etc.
How would you word your complaint?
Lawyers and insiders everywhere....
It isn't black and white and whether the word monopoly is the one to use isn't all that important.
This line of thinking doesn't mesh with the outcome of the Microsoft browser bundling case. It was determined that Microsoft committed monopolization and tying in violation of antitrust law. Yet Microsoft wasn't a monopoly in your way of thinking - there were/are alternatives.
The difference is that they went after Microsoft because it was hurting other businesses, not because of the consumer protection aspect. Unfortunately.
Give me a break. Tweaking 5% (probably much less) of the contract doesn't change the effective result. Probably a 50 page contract with name of carrier and $ amount changed.
I'm not a lawyer... nor an insider.
Sometimes the law is the only solution.
Not only this, but it's a separate fee because they market nationally. Comcast or Charter doesn't have this fee (necessarily...Charter does have a fee for locals) because they can and do price their packages by market. Since DirecTV has national pricing, they have to break out the RSN fee so that they don't have to come up with different prices for the base packages based on where you live (and, they don't have to raise the rates and therefore stay competitive with cable in "cheaper" RSN areas)
FiOS just started their RSN fee recently. I wouldn't be surprised if this is adopted by other TV providers shortly...
Why is the San Diego market paying this RSN fee? Isn't DirecTV contractually obligated to only carry Fox Sports San Diego down here?
I just checked a random San Diego zip code (92101) via www.DIRECTV.com/RSN, and that area has 5 RSN's:
- Time Warner Cable Sportsnet
- Time Warner Cable Deportes
- FS West
- Prime Ticket
- FS San Diego
FS SD is just a sub feed of FS West / Prime Ticket
Aren't 4 out of the 5 LA RSN's? San Diego is not LA. Hate it that they lump us together with LA.
As far as I know, it won't be for long. It should become full-time in the not too distant future.