This is not going to help their latest plan to get bigger.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hol...antitrust-directv-lawsuit-20161102-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/business/hol...antitrust-directv-lawsuit-20161102-story.html
Based on what information? The Justice Dept. doesn't file anti-trust lawsuits for the fun of it.no merrit in the suit
make it a stand alone channel based on what tw wants for it
but directv should not be forced to carry a channel by the DOJ
and im not gonna get into what the doj does or doesnt do and why or why not
thats a discussion for a political forum
You would think if Company A said that they don't want the channel, but Company B and C do want it, it would be as simple as saying that.
Just because Company A said no, the others still have the right to it if they want to pay the demands for the channel.
I don't know why its not a channel like every other RSN.
It is a channel just like every other RSN. The other companies didn't have to say no just because Directv did. That isn't the problem. The problem is that Directv allegedly went to AT&T, Cox, and Charter to convince them to say no for the purpose of driving the price down. That is illegal.
.
I fixed it for you.(Off-topic, how do you edit a post here? Seems I've forgotten how to spell 'exactly'.)