Appeals court throws out FCC Ruling on contracts.

Status
Please reply by conversation.

goaliebob99

SatelliteGuys Master
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Aug 5, 2004
14,486
520
-.-. .... .. -.-. .- --. ---
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/08/usa-court-television-idUSL1N0XZ1EE20150508

Big NEWS! WELCOME to the Directv AT&T Support Forum!

This was the last thing that was needed to push the AT&T deal through and with this ruling It's probably a matter of days if not hours before the deal closes.

May 8 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday threw out a federal agency's order that media companies should disclose their programming contracts with pay-TV providers as part of regulators' review of pending cable and telecom mergers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the Federal Communications Commission, which last year asked various U.S. media companies to disclose their contracts with pay-TV providers to help with the reviews of Comcast Corp's now-withdrawn proposed merger with Time Warner Cable Inc and AT&T Inc's proposed acquisition of DirecTV.

Writing on behalf of the three-judge panel, Judge David Tatel said the order was "substantially and procedurally flawed." The court found that the FCC has failed to show that information in question was a key element of the review process.

The media companies, including CBS Corp, Walt Disney Co and Twenty-First Century Fox Inc, that challenged the request had said in court papers that the FCC's order would cause "irreparable harm."

The court in November stayed the FCC's disclosure order, but said the merger proceedings and the FCC review could continue as the regulator already had access to all the materials. The court matter largely influenced the ability of third parties and the public to consider the documents and weigh in.

Comcast dropped its plans to buy its biggest cable rival on April 24 after U.S. regulators signaled strong reservations about the merger that could not be remedied by conditions.

The case is CBS Corp et al vs FCC et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit, No. 14-1242. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley. Additional reporting by Alina Selyukh; Editing by Bill Trott and Susan Heavey)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ.
I don't understand why ANYONE would have expected this information to have had to be shared ....

If K9sat and I have an agreement to broadcast his channel, thats cool.

Now dishfan wants to have K9sat's channel, K9 and I have a agreement, why should dishfan be able to say How much did Jimbo pay you, I'll pay you a little less, or slightly more.
No, it should be K9's prerogative to negotiate with dishfan for whatever he's asking.
He should not have to tell dishfan how much I am paying him for Any reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hutch1814
I don't understand why ANYONE would have expected this information to have had to be shared ....

If K9sat and I have an agreement to broadcast his channel, thats cool.

Now dishfan wants to have K9sat's channel, K9 and I have a agreement, why should dishfan be able to say How much did Jimbo pay you, I'll pay you a little less, or slightly more.
No, it should be K9's prerogative to negotiate with dishfan for whatever he's asking.
He should not have to tell dishfan how much I am paying him for Any reason.

Totally agree.. I think what part of this is some people in the industry wanted to know if there were sweetheart deals going around, which you and I fully know that there are. If all that comes into the open then it becomes a negotiation tactic for a provider who perhaps hasn't been the best to work with. I am sure that there are some programmers who prefer to work with provider a over provider b because provider b often has spats, asks for the lower rate/value and sues. So I am sure when it comes to negotiations, said channel provider more often than not gives a better break to provider a because they were more than willing to work with them and be less difficult.

I can totally see that going down, and if the shoe fits (provider b, ummm Dish Network... not that I'm naming any names. ) Then, they should learn how to give and take a bit better when it comes to negotiations. In the mean time if any other provider got a better deal, well, that's on Dish and there tactics and how the boat floats! I am glad that the courts actually employed common sense with this ruling. These contracts are private contracts between public company's. No reason why they needed to be made public, as they are confidential between the two companies as agreed too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimbo
Not arguing the point....But at what point does sweetheart deals turn into collusion?.
 
Not arguing the point....But at what point does sweetheart deals turn into collusion?.

That's kind of hard to prove with private contracts. I honestly think that there isn't any collusion going on. What I believe is happening (speculation) is that you have some providers pricing them selfs out of the market by using tactics that is not the best. In turn the providers are like F**K it, if they want to to have our service lets make it worth while for us if we have to deal with this. Where as other providers are like, well the price is high but we will meet you half way if you meet with us on some terms. Instead of going on the sue happy bandwagon. When you treat your partners like they are apart of the family and welcomed on the service it makes a world of difference.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/08/usa-court-television-idUSL1N0XZ1EE20150508

Big NEWS! WELCOME to the Directv AT&T Support Forum!

This was the last thing that was needed to push the AT&T deal through and with this ruling It's probably a matter of days if not hours before the deal closes.
I think they should have to disclose. The reason I state this is it is the consumer who would benefit by having this information. And to a consumer, information is power. Of course businesses would rather the consumer have as little information as possible.
Going back to the wireless buyouts and takeovers, in these deals some customers were shunted off to secondary carriers. Some of these carriers had less coverage. Some had no equivalent plan to match what they once had.
In some of the cases, the new carrier would not let the customers out of their contracts. Had the customers had the knowledge before hand that the new carrier would not be to their liking, they could have made other arrangements.
 
Can we get out of our contract once they take over?
probably not without paying an ETF. Which in my opinion is garbage.
I look at it this way.
My contract is with "A"....If "A" sells out to or merges with "B", that in my view is a new company. I have no contract with "B"...I should either be able to compel "B" to give me a reason why I should become a customer, or I should be free to move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hutch1814
probably not without paying an ETF. Which in my opinion is garbage.
I look at it this way.
My contract is with "A"....If "A" sells out to or merges with "B", that in my view is a new company. I have no contract with "B"...I should either be able to compel "B" to give me a reason why I should become a customer, or I should be free to move on.

True. AT&T is just as bad as comcast so I won't be sticking around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hutch1814
Had them for Internet a year ago . They lied about My promo price. Then when I did get my price I was quoted they jacked it up 6 months later. It's their customer service, it's down right horrible .
 
Had them for Internet a year ago . They lied about My promo price. Then when I did get my price I was quoted they jacked it up 6 months later. It's their customer service, it's down right horrible .
I am in Customer Service, but in the field, I think your talking about CSR on the phone.

The most frustrating part I find is the hold and bouncing around to get a real person .... however, that happens with most major companies ... that said, that doesn't name it right.
 
True. AT&T is just as bad as comcast so I won't be sticking around.

Why just because ATT is taking over doesn't mean that the customer service is changing or Directv reps instantly become this ATT Troll with bad customer service. Everything as is is staying in place. When you call Directv, you will continue to get that great customer service even when the name changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimbo
Why just because ATT is taking over doesn't mean that the customer service is changing or Directv reps instantly become this ATT Troll with bad customer service. Everything as is is staying in place. When you call Directv, you will continue to get that great customer service even when the name changes.
I am with Goaliebob on this one, I do not see the customer service changing just because AT&T is taking over.
 
not that im saying AT&T is above it, but thats like killing the family cow. i doubt the CSR are going to change for a while. if anything, AT&T's CSR may improve... i hope lol.
 
Had them for Internet a year ago . They lied about My promo price. Then when I did get my price I was quoted they jacked it up 6 months later. It's their customer service, it's down right horrible .

Me too. Exact thing with Internet. And they won't let me get out of my cell contract since I moved and have minimal to zero service at my new house. I tried to call, visit stores, and Internet with different information each time. I have never been given accurate information from AT&T cs.

A buddy of mine used to work at AT&T and still kept his Verizon phone. He said that he dealt with too much incompetence to have them get his money.
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts