Topic 'Re: I wonder' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: I wonder

Sun, 15 Jul 2012 06:43:35 EDT

Unbundled posted : What I would like to see, and there's no law against this, as far as I know, is for consumers to get together, and tell all of the cable/ satellite/wire companies, and the Media Conglomerates that bundle to them, that we, the customers are going to ONLY pay for the networks that we watch, and that we are no longer going to pay for netwroks that we --do not-- watch. Period.

Re: I wonder

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:25:41 EDT

iknow posted :

said by Linklist:

Please re-read
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

"Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.

The intent of price fixing may be to push the price of a product as high as possible, leading to profits for all sellers but may also have the goal to fix, peg, discount, or stabilize prices. The defining characteristic of price fixing is any agreement regarding price, whether expressed or implied."
They are NOT on the same side in a market!. NOTICE also, that Profits of the SELLERS are the case in point!. in any case, the intent of the law is to lower prices in favor of consumers, NOT to increase prices in favor of sellers!. this is what FAIR competition is about!. no one can be forced by law to pay for anything they feel is too costly.(taxes are an exception).

Re: I wonder

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:02:11 EDT

Linklist posted :

said by iknow:

said by Linklist:

said by cypherstream:

Oh yeah what law is that?

A series of laws under category of anti-trust:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta···rust_law
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

NO, those laws are aimed at sellers, NOT buyers!!. I've NEVER found a law that says you can't dispute a price a seller charges!. BUT, these laws were passed to protect buyers of products that could have been priced unconscionably high by collusive pricing by the sellers read the "sense of congress" on each law.

Please re-read
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product,

Price fixing requires a conspiracy between sellers or buyers.

--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Re: I wonder

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:55:47 EDT

iknow posted :

said by Linklist:

said by cypherstream:

Oh yeah what law is that?

A series of laws under category of anti-trust:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta···rust_law
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

Re: I wonder

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:19:41 EDT

JPL posted :

said by Chubbysumo:

said by Linklist:

said by baineschile:

Why the distributors dont gather forces (DirectTV, Dish, TimeWarner, Comcast) and just say to Viacom "hey, this is the price we are going to give you, if you dont take it then you cant broadcast on any of us".

Because if they got together as a group to decide that, they would be breaking the law.

Isnt Viacom breaking the law by using their powers of a monopoly and content owner to cut access to DTVs customers? Isnt that showing that they are a monopoly and are abusing their powers as a monopoly(to a point where they are now showing they need more regulation)

No, it's not the same thing. Viacom may have exclusive control over, say, Comedy Central, but that's no different than, say, Apple having total control over, say, the iPhone. It's their product. Other companies can, and do, come in with competing offerings. Fox News started because Murdoch though CNN was too liberally biased.

The argument could then be made that there are no other alternatives - what's the alternative to say Comedy Central? That's an invalid argument. Companies aren't obligated to exist to provide you with a specific product or service. Meaning, a competing offering to Comedy Central doesn't HAVE to exist. If it does... great. If it doesn't, then the question is - why? If it turns out that Viacom is engaging in unfair practices to keep another such channel, a competing channel, from seeing the light of day... that would be illegal. But just because one doesn't exist, doesn't mean that Viacom is doing anything illegal here. In other words - Viacom doesn't have a monopoly. There are other content providers out there. Any one of them are free to offer up content that directly competes with what Viacom offers.

Re: I wonder

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:14:06 EDT

JPL posted :

said by Simba7:

It'd be like the consumers telling the oil companies what they'll pay for oil.

No, it wouldn't be like that at all. Look, consumers have the power of the purse over business. You tell these companies, every day, what you're willing to pay for something. You do it through your purchasing actions.

Re: I wonder

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:11:06 EDT

JPL posted :

said by cypherstream:

Oh yeah what law is that?

That would be called collusion. Companies can't do it. Besides, why would they do that? If I'm DirecTV's competitors I'd be advertizing that 'we have Comedy Central... DirecTV doesn't.'

Re: I wonder

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:53:18 EDT

fiberguy posted :

said by Simba7:

Ha.. and what the content companies are doing is called "extortion"

You're absolutely correct!

There are a few simple things I believe they should put into a law/regulation and call it a day.

1) Those customers who have subscribed prior to the retrans deal should remain able to view the network so long as they signed a contract at the current rate until the time their commitment is lost. The providers are benefit to the very contract the carrier gets because the customer is in a contract. New customers should not receive the programming AND if the negotiations have not been resolved, the carrier should discontinue access as their initial contracts expire.

2) (and this is my BIGGEST peeve) The networks should be FORBIDDEN from running scrolls on their tv feeds during a contract negotiation, PERIOD! They should NOT be allowed to involve the consumer by means of motivation to bail on (say) Dish for DirecTV or Cable. This is leverage that should NOT be on the table. It's pure extortion and is meant to damage the carrier in the process of negotiation. Furthermore, as a cable subscriber WHY do *I* need to know about a dispute between a network and a carrier I don't subscribe?

3) If a subscriber is to lose a channel, the carrier MUST reduce the cable bill of all subscribers affected by the actual retail value which would be determined by a magistrate.

4) In case of a dispute, both parties should have to justify their rates to a court or magistrate. Hollywood has FAR too long had the ability to arbitrarily set their rates. There have been many times in history where the carriers have had to justify rate increases based on costs. Hollywood has a VERY broad spreadsheet and, in my opinion, raises rates just because.

For many years, people have turned their sights to carriers for unjust rate increases.. they've been blamed for simply being greedy on TV increases when their rates are largely affected by retrans agreements. Because of the abuse, providers have been regulated in the past. Perhaps it's time to regulate Hollywood on video services for the very thing carriers have been accused of.

I think the consumer is getting tired of getting caught up in these petty arguments. They need to do this outside of the public arena - it's a dishonest tactic.

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:23:28 EDT

Big Dawg 23 posted : its price collusion. IT would be like the Airlines, which they believe did set prices at a level to rape the consumer.

Yes Ideally it would be nice for all providers to tell these large companies to shove on the channel costs. Its bad enough the garbage channels you have to carrier to get the few you want.

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:07:49 EDT

ViRGEdx posted :

said by Linklist:

The fact that only Viacom sells a particular popular show or group of shows doesn't make for a monopolist.

And that's the crux of the issue. Being the only company producing a hot show is not the same thing as the only company producing TV shows at all. The high courts have never accepted such an argument.

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:49:25 EDT

armed posted : No

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:35:57 EDT

cdru posted :

said by Simba7:

It'd be like the consumers telling the oil companies what they'll pay for oil.

I know what it would be like. But is that illegal?

Buying groups abound that bring together buyers of products or services to get more favorable pricing or to have clout where they had little individually. There are also buying cartels, but I think one of the main distinctions is what does the effect of the group/cartel have on both upstream, downstream, and competitors.

If DirecTV, Dish, TimeWarner, Comcast when to Viacom and said you will only allow us to carry your channels and other operators cannot have your service, then there are issues. Nor are those cable companies telling Viacom what they can or can't sell to other cable dealers or other distribution means.

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:12:04 EDT

Simba7 posted : It'd be like the consumers telling the oil companies what they'll pay for oil.

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:08:17 EDT

cdru posted :

said by Linklist:

A series of laws under category of anti-trust:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

Would price fixing apply here? I don't think I've ever heard of a group being charged with fixing prices for what they PAY for a service.

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:26:50 EDT

Simba7 posted : Ha.. and what the content companies are doing is called "extortion"

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:21:05 EDT

Linklist posted :

said by Chubbysumo:

said by Linklist:

said by baineschile:

Because if they got together as a group to decide that, they would be breaking the law.

Someone could certainly try and prove that claim;including DOJ, state attorneys general; etc. But as there are 5 or 6 major content groups and scores of smaller ones, a monopoly would be hard to prove.

The fact that only Viacom sells a particular popular show or group of shows doesn't make for a monopolist.

--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:17:09 EDT

Chubbysumo posted :

said by Linklist:

said by baineschile:

Because if they got together as a group to decide that, they would be breaking the law.

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:14:44 EDT

armed posted : Because that would be against the law. Anti competition and all that. Companies cannot conspire together to control costs.

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:52:41 EDT

Linklist posted :

said by cypherstream:

Oh yeah what law is that?

A series of laws under category of anti-trust:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta···rust_law
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:51:40 EDT

NeoandGeo posted :

said by baineschile:

Because it would be against the law......That's not to say that it would be great for consumers. Most laws and corporations are anti-consumer in the first place and made to protect the fabricated idea that money is something "real".

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:45:31 EDT

cypherstream posted : Oh yeah what law is that?

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:41:08 EDT

Linklist posted :

said by baineschile:

Because if they got together as a group to decide that, they would be breaking the law.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Re: I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:19:35 EDT

me1212 posted : Because is direct doesnt have them but its competitors do they may be able to snag a few customers.

I wonder

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:16:07 EDT

baineschile posted : Why the distributors dont gather forces (DirectTV, Dish, TimeWarner, Comcast) and just say to Viacom "hey, this is the price we are going to give you, if you dont take it then you cant broadcast on any of us".

I feel like that might halt the yearly TV price increases, since so many comes from these channel distributors.