 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to cypherstream
Re: I wonder 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 |
|
 Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Ha.. and what the content companies are doing is called "extortion" |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | reply to Linklist
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. |
|
Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | It'd be like the consumers telling the oil companies what they'll pay for oil. |
|
cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | 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. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Simba7
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. |
|
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:2 | reply to Simba7
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. |
|
iknowPremium
join:2012-03-25 | reply to Linklist
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. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by iknow: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 |
|
iknowPremium
join:2012-03-25 | "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). |
|
