NFL Sunday Ticket Restrictions Legal?

[nelson61]

A historical review of the congressional, legal, and financial history of the Sunday Ticket.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v64/no1/Vol.64-1_2011-Dec_Art.-07_Bublick.pdf

 

[Tampa8]

You know, I am so fed up with Government intervention, I don't want any attempt to call it an antitrust issue. It's government intervention that has the ridicules rules we already have.

 

[dare2be]

You know, I am so fed up with Government intervention, I don't want any attempt to call it an antitrust issue. It's government intervention that has the ridicules rules we already have.

You mean like the 1996 Telecom deregulation that allowed conglomerate ownership of media companies that now drive up programming prices by holding channels hostage in carriage negotiations? There's ridiculousness on both sides of the coin...the trick is finding a sensible balance.

 

[dan188]

there are other ways to get Sunday ticket now. you can get it on ps3 with out dtv for exqmple

 

[sA :: Shaggy]

there are other ways to get Sunday ticket now. you can get it on ps3 with out dtv for exqmple

Yes you can for 300 bucks.... OR!!!! Find a friend w/ Directv pay him 50 bucks and get it on your ps3. Sounds sooo much better.

 

[chicagonettech]

A historical review of the congressional, legal, and financial history of the Sunday Ticket.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v64/no1/Vol.64-1_2011-Dec_Art.-07_Bublick.pdf

This will be an interesting case to watch. It also has some other repercussions for the industry as a whole, but those will not even be viable until the initial NFL Sunday Ticket case is resolved.

 

[dan188]

could the outcome affect the nascar hotpass.

 

[navychop]

Do you really think our public $ervant$ are going to rule in our interests?

Good thing I don't care about sports.

 

[chicagonettech]

could the outcome affect the nascar hotpass.

The NFL will be the biggest "Goliath" to topple. Given the huge greed on the part of the players, the blatant publicity, and the ever increasing fees being passed to consumers who can barely afford to pay their mortgages and fill the gas tanks in their cars, this will probably happen pretty quickly. I am also betting that this class action on the part of IU will spread, like wildfire, into other legal groups in other states and the combined effort will be like the roar of a wild fire as it approaches to burn down a house caught in the path of a forest fire.

Once the NFL is shot down by David's Sling® [coming SOON] shot, then other contracts protected by exemptions from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act should topple like dominoes.

 

[The Fat Man]

I said it on the DirecTV forum already, but even though I don't agree with the NFL's "reason" for giving D* exclusive rights, there isn't any case. Reasons are 1.) As others have said it's available on PS3. 2.) Dish and the cable industry lost their right to complain when they agreed to the Red Zone. There are options, not exactly the same, but choice is there for the consumer. Therefore, there isn't any monopoly.

 

[chicagonettech]

. . . Therefore, there isn't any monopoly.

That's the whole point. The IU law students are not going after this on the basis of a monopoly, they are going after it as a violation of the Aherman anti-trust act because the original intent of the waiver long ago expired and the NFL, which is no longer the skinney little weakling is now,the bully.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

[The Fat Man]

Anti-trust is a synonym for monopoly. Dates back 100 years with entities such as Standard Oil Trust. People were claiming that the company held a monopoly on the oil in America. The term anti-trust comes from the problem with these trusts and means not wanting a monopoly. DirecTV is the only satellite/cable provider with ST, but RZ offers an alternative, as does getting ST streaming on PS3. There is a healthy competition in means of seeing live out of market games, therefore no trust, no monopoly.

I understand that they are referring to a specific act, but at the end of the day when I hear anti-trust, I think monopoly.

 

[dare2be]

If you think RZ is a "healthy competition alternative" to ST, then I don't know what to say.

Also, there are monopolistic behaviors at work here, like forcing all subscribers to buy the full-blown package, instead of offering a single team or a division rival package.

No package choice + limited provider choice falls under the "severely limiting consumer choice" under the Sherman Act IMO.

 

[Ronnie-]

Nobody is "forcing" anybody to buy anything.

 

[dare2be]

You missed the point. Or you purposefully set up that strawman.

 

[Ronnie-]

Well you did add some to it after I posted, but my opinion on the matter still stays the same (and yes, that opinion goes beyond what I simply posted in this thread ).

 

[dare2be]

Fair enough. We can disagree, provided all the valid arguments are presented.

 

[mdram]

so if they do force the nfl to allow any provider
and a provider refuses to pay the fee involved will you then ask that it be provided free?

 

[dare2be]

so if they do force the nfl to allow any provider
and a provider refuses to pay the fee involved will you then ask that it be provided free?

Who, me? Of course not. Where is that crazy talk coming from?

 

[mdram]

Who, me? Of course not. Where is that crazy talk coming from?

just a general question

ive said that its in the nfl interest to allow any provider to carry st
and drop the cost in half
heck i can get any sport for half the cost
figure cost per game and st is 10-20x the cost of other sports