NIL District Court Decision- Plaintiffs Seeks Schools and Conferences to Make NIL Payments NCAAA Proposals Post #17

[i'vegotwinners]

The professor in me wants to make one more try:

Let's assume that the pay TV bundle is unique -- that there's nothing like it in any other industry. That doesn't prove it's illegal. There's a difference between being "unique" and being "illegal."

The pay TV bundle is, as both @Knight Shift and I have told you, an example of a tying arrangement. A tying arrangement is one in which I say to you, "I will sell you X, but only if you also buy Y from me." That's the pay TV bundle: "I will sell you the right to view Fox TV, but only if you also buy from me the right to view MSNBC, ESPN, QVC" and so on and so forth.

Tying arrangements are not always violations of the anti-trust laws. (If you don't believe me, see the linked source, a quick summary of the law) That makes it very hard to predict what a court would do with one. The only court case I could quickly find specifically concerning pay TV bundles said the bundle did not violate the antitrust laws. (The case was decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the plaintiffs' appeal of that decision.)

I should add that antitrust laws are not dependent for their enforcement on the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission or any other government agency. Rather, those injured can bring suit in court and potentially collect triple damages. (This is how the National Association of Realtors is being forced to change its rules for charging commissions.) There are lots of plaintiffs' firms that specialize in this kind of litigation because it can be quite lucrative. If the pay TV bundle was really an obvious antitrust violation, we'd be seeing lots of lawsuits to collect damages

May I finally say that since you are the one who made the original assertion of illegality, the burden is on you to make that case. Yelling "as blatant an anti trust violation as one can get" is a statement of a conclusion rather than an argument that demonstrates that conclusion.

Have a good evening! Now here's the source on tying arrangements: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tying_arrangement and here's a source on the court case: https://www.streamtvinsider.com/cable/court-says-tv-channel-bundles-don-t-violate-antitrust-statutes

what a total crock.

a company can require you to buy more than one of it's products, to buy any.

but the instant said company enters into an agreement with all it's competitors that no one can buy any company's product without also buying the competing product of all it's competitors, they have created an absolute monopoly through the effective contractual merger of all the competitors.

any lawyer should know that without my having to school them.

and if the FTC did it's job, (which it no longer does since it's takeover by Wall St), the burden wouldn't always fall on the helpless consumer to fend off monopolies and anti competitive behavior.

and yes, some of our courts are as crooked as can be.

black robes don't stop some judges from being totally corrupt.

these judges were obviously either totally corrupt or total idiots, and my money is on totally corrupt.

 

[Knight Shift]

what a total crock.

a company can require you to buy more than one of it's products, to buy any.

but the instant said company enters into an agreement with all it's competitors that no one can buy any company's product without also buying the competing product of all it's competitors, they have created an absolute monopoly through the effective contractual merger of all the competitors.

and if the FTC did it's job, (which it no longer does since it's takeover by Wall St), the burden wouldn't always fall on the helpless consumer to fend off monopolies and anti competitive behavior.

and yes, some of our courts are as crooked as can be.

black robes don't stop some judges from being totally corrupt.

these judges were obviously either totally corrupt or total idiots, and my money is on totally corrupt.

angry much?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

angry much?

what a total crock.

a company can require you to buy more than one of it's products, to buy any.

but the instant said company enters into an agreement with all it's competitors that no one can buy any company's product without also buying the competing product of all it's competitors, they have created an absolute monopoly through the effective contractual merger of all the competitors.

any lawyer should know that without my having to school them.

and if the FTC did it's job, (which it no longer does since it's takeover by Wall St), the burden wouldn't always fall on the helpless consumer to fend off monopolies and anti competitive behavior.

and yes, some of our courts are as crooked as can be.

black robes don't stop some judges from being totally corrupt.

these judges were obviously either totally corrupt or total idiots, and my money is on totally corrupt.

angry much?
---------------------------------
translation,

i can't credibly disagree with or counter anything you said, so i'll try and attack you personally instead.

 

[retired711]

angry much?

No matter what I do, I can't convince this gentleman that private plaintiffs can enforce the anti-trust laws through bringing law suits. Action by the FTC or the Department of Justice is unnecessary. The recent antitrust verdict against the realtors was a result of a private law suit, not a governmental enforcement action. That's the norm ,not the exception.

Do you understand what he means by competitors making an agreement with each other that you have to buy both products? He seems to think that the pay TV bundle is something created by agreements between, say, Fox and ESPN. But that's wrong --it's the cable company that creates the bundle by saying to the customer, "If you want Fox, you have to buy ESPN, too."

As a professor, I came across students who found it hard to learn the material. That's fine -- teaching them was my job. I would sit up nights trying to figure out a way to explain, say, the Rule Against Perpetuities in a way everyone would understand. (I never succeeded, but at least I tried.) Almost without exception, the students were trying to learn. Rarely did I come across anyone like this gentleman who just plain didn't want to.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Do you understand what he means by competitors making an agreement with each other that you have to buy both products? He seems to think that the pay TV bundle is something created by agreements between, say, Fox and ESPN. But that's wrong --it's the cable company that creates the bundle by saying to the customer, "If you want Fox, you have to buy ESPN, too."

wrong.

the networks themselves contractually mandated the bundle through each mandating 100% carriage, not the pay tv providers.

and had the providers created it, (with all the competing providers creating the exact same bundle through the greatest coincidence in history), it still would create an absolute monopoly and be anti competitive..

 

[Knight Shift]

No matter what I do, I can't convince this gentleman that private plaintiffs can enforce the anti-trust laws through bringing law suits. Action by the FTC or the Department of Justice is unnecessary. The recent antitrust verdict against the realtors was a result of a private law suit, not a governmental enforcement action. That's the norm ,not the exception.

Do you understand what he means by competitors making an agreement with each other that you have to buy both products? He seems to think that the pay TV bundle is something created by agreements between, say, Fox and ESPN. But that's wrong --it's the cable company that creates the bundle by saying to the customer, "If you want Fox, you have to buy ESPN, too."

As a professor, I came across students who found it hard to learn the material. That's fine -- teaching them was my job. I would sit up nights trying to figure out a way to explain, say, the Rule Against Perpetuities in a way everyone would understand. (I never succeeded, but at least I tried.) Almost without exception, the students were trying to learn. Rarely did I come across anyone like this gentleman who just plain didn't want to.

I will take a stab at this, but this is admittedly outside my wheelhouse. Plus it's been a long day of drudgery toiling over an inane patent matter. Before I even tried to formulate a reply, I Googled "TV bundles antitrust" and voila--fairies grant wishes!!! (and they wear boots (a Black Sabbath reference, not a slight).

YouTubeTV subscribers have filed a class action lawsuit against Disney for operating their business as a single entity, causing it to drive up prices for live-streaming pay TV services.

Interestingly, however, "while the judge said that these terms could harm consumers, Davila found that they likely don’t constitute violations of antitrust law since they do “not state a cognizable injury to competition.” However, he concluded Disney’s “infrastructure and agreements have produced barriers to entry” to support plaintiffs’ claims."

The second link provides a helpful link on pleading an antitrust injury. Unless I'm overlooking something, I don't see how a consumer could meet the two prong test.

Does Disney’s Management of Hulu and ESPN Violate Antitrust Laws? A Judge Weighs In

YouTube TV subscribers filed a class action lawsuit accusing Disney of essentially operating the business as a single entity, which has allowed it to drive up prices for live-streaming pay TV services across the board.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

The Elements of Antitrust Injury: A Two-Prong Test - Bona Law

Plaintiffs must establish “antitrust injury” to recover under federal antitrust laws. This means injury of the type the antitrust laws were...

www.bonalaw.com

angry much?
---------------------------------
translation,

i can't credibly disagree with or counter anything you said, so i'll try and attack you personally instead.

No, not really. You sound unhinged to the point of accusing judges of being "totally corrupt" or "total idiots." Your hyperbole is indicative being angry and unhinged. Take a look at what I wrote above. It's been very difficult to engage in a reasonable discourse with you. Please do not take that as a personal insult, as I am just trying my best to relate to what you are trying to say and having a hard time understanding what seems like anger-fueled rants. But I tried above. Good evening to you.

 

[Knight Shift]

wrong.

the networks themselves contractually mandated the bundle through each mandating 100% carriage, not the pay tv providers.

and had the providers created it, (with all the competing providers creating the exact same bundle through the greatest coincidence in history), it still would be an absolute monopoly and anti competitive..

Still not sure what exactly you are getting at, but perhaps Disney is a good example, owning ABC, ESPN and many other Disney properties? See the case above. But what exactly are you referring to when you say the "networks themselves contractually mandated the bundle. . . "

Which networks specifically? And did they collude or conspire in some way?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I will take a stab at this, but this is admittedly outside my wheelhouse. Plus it's been a long day of drudgery toiling over an inane patent matter. Before I even tried to formulate a reply, I Googled "TV bundles antitrust" and voila--fairies grant wishes!!! (and they wear boots (a Black Sabbath reference, not a slight).

YouTubeTV subscribers have filed a class action lawsuit against Disney for operating their business as a single entity, causing it to drive up prices for live-streaming pay TV services.

Interestingly, however, "while the judge said that these terms could harm consumers, Davila found that they likely don’t constitute violations of antitrust law since they do “not state a cognizable injury to competition.” However, he concluded Disney’s “infrastructure and agreements have produced barriers to entry” to support plaintiffs’ claims."

The second link provides a helpful link on pleading an antitrust injury. Unless I'm overlooking something, I don't see how a consumer could meet the two prong test.

Does Disney’s Management of Hulu and ESPN Violate Antitrust Laws? A Judge Weighs In

YouTube TV subscribers filed a class action lawsuit accusing Disney of essentially operating the business as a single entity, which has allowed it to drive up prices for live-streaming pay TV services across the board.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

The Elements of Antitrust Injury: A Two-Prong Test - Bona Law

Plaintiffs must establish “antitrust injury” to recover under federal antitrust laws. This means injury of the type the antitrust laws were...

www.bonalaw.com

No, not really. You sound unhinged to the point of accusing judges of being "totally corrupt" or "total idiots." Your hyperbole is indicative being angry and unhinged. Take a look at what I wrote above. It's been very difficult to engage in a reasonable discourse with you. Please do not take that as a personal insult, as I am just trying my best to relate to what you are trying to say and having a hard time understanding what seems like anger-fueled rants. But I tried above. Good evening to you.

save your BS.

the fact that consumers can bring a complaint, doesn't mean they should have to, or have any chance of winning against multinational conglomerates with infinite resources.

we have an FTC for a reason.

and Wall St captured it for a reason. (just as it did the FCC).

and news flash, corruption does exist, and your pretending it doesn't is just flat dishonesty on your part.

you know damn well it does, as does everyone else.

you can't be any more anti competitive, than all competitors contractually entering into an agreement not to compete, which is exactly what happened..


.

 

[Luvscarletknights]

So you don't believe in the free market? Not very conservative or republican of you. LOL

Way to go political.....so pathetic of you.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Still not sure what exactly you are getting at, but perhaps Disney is a good example, owning ABC, ESPN and many other Disney properties? See the case above. But what exactly are you referring to when you say the "networks themselves contractually mandated the bundle. . . "

Which networks specifically? And did they collude or conspire in some way?

wrong.

the networks themselves contractually mandated the bundle through each mandating 100% carriage, not the pay tv providers.

and had the providers created it, (with all the competing providers creating the exact same bundle through the greatest coincidence in history), it still would create an absolute monopoly and be anti competitive..

your not knowing what the heck you're talking about isn't my fault.

i literally spelled it out for you.

 

[Knight Shift]

your not knowing what the heck you're talking about isn't my fault.

i literally spelled it out for you.

err, no. Good night, and good luck with whatever you are trying to achieve.

 

[retired711]

wrong.

the networks themselves contractually mandated the bundle through each mandating 100% carriage, not the pay tv providers.

and had the providers created it, (with all the competing providers creating the exact same bundle through the greatest coincidence in history), it still would create an absolute monopoly and be anti competitive..

I'm not sure what you're referring to in your first sentence. I'm sure you don't mean "networks" literally to refer to the three classic broadcast networks. The Federal Communications Commission decades ago established "must-carry" rules that obligate cable system operators to carry local broadcast channels. The idea was to keep cable systems from driving local channels out of business. Congress has subsequently written those rules into law. Is that what you're talking about? Here's some info:
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/must-carry-rules/

Are you saying that Disney, for instance, said to the cable systems, "If you want to carry ESPN, then you have to carry the Discovery Channel, too?" That would be tying, and you seem to agree that tying is not necessarily an antitrust violation.

Your second sentence isn't convincing, either. Let's assume that Direct TV and Comcast are offering the same bundle in my area, and that they are the only providers. That doesn't establish a violation of the anti-trust laws. One would have to show an agreement on their part to offer the same bundle. Uniformity may suggest an agreement, but it doesn't prove it.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I'm not sure what you're referring to in your first sentence. I'm sure you don't mean "networks" literally to refer to the three classic broadcast networks. The Federal Communications Commission decades ago established "must-carry" rules that obligate cable system operators to carry local broadcast channels. The idea was to keep cable systems from driving local channels out of business. Congress has subsequently written those rules into law. Is that what you're talking about? Here's some info:
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/must-carry-rules/

Are you saying that Disney, for instance, said to the cable systems, "If you want to carry ESPN, then you have to carry the Discovery Channel, too?" That would be tying, and you seem to agree that tying is not necessarily an antitrust violation.

Your second sentence isn't convincing, either. Let's assume that Direct TV and Comcast are offering the same bundle in my area, and that they are the only providers. That doesn't establish a violation of the anti-trust laws. One would have to show an agreement on their part to offer the same bundle. Uniformity may suggest an agreement, but it doesn't prove it.

your industry knowledge is so lacking that you have no business even in the debate.

the same with your grasp of what is and isn't a monopoly.

the networks in the bundle, all of them, demand 100% carriage, which forces the all or none of every channel within the bundle.

it's literally all said networks contractually mandating they get purchased if anything is purchased, thus contractually agreeing to form a monopoly rather than compete.

on a side note, "must carry" only holds for over the air networks that decide NOT to charge for carriage by a pay tv provider..

if an over the air network decides to charge pay tv providers for carriage, (retransmission consent), they no longer can require carriage. (thus why we have blackouts in retransmission consent contract impasses).

i realize there are always some who will argue 2+2=5 forever, but anyone who refuses to admit that all the networks in the bundle contractually agreeing NOT to compete with each other, but contractually form a monopoly instead, isn't anti competitive behavior and shouldn't be considered an anti trust violation, is just trolling and not being honest.

for this to happen in pay tv, which is basically a utility and not a discretionary purchase, is particularly egregious.

the penalty of this for the consumer is probably $100 mo for many, and for many no longer being able to afford pay tv at all anymore. (an industry that made out great when 36-41 channels cost $6.95 - $10 mo with no contracts).

 

[Knight Shift]

your industry knowledge is so lacking that you have no business even in the debate.

the same with your grasp of what is and isn't a monopoly.

the networks in the bundle, all of them, demand 100% carriage, which forces the all or none of every channel within the bundle.

it's literally all said networks contractually mandating they get purchased if anything is purchased, thus contractually agreeing to form a monopoly rather than compete.

on a side note, "must carry" only holds for over the air networks that decide NOT to charge for carriage by a pay tv provider..

if an over the air network decides to charge pay tv providers for carriage, (retransmission consent), they no longer can require carriage. (thus why we have blackouts in retransmission consent contract impasses).

i realize there are always some who will argue 2+2=5 forever, but anyone who refuses to admit that all the networks in the bundle contractually agreeing NOT to compete with each other, but contractually form a monopoly instead, isn't anti competitive behavior and shouldn't be considered an anti trust violation, is just trolling and not being honest.

for this to happen in pay tv, which is basically a utility and not a discretionary purchase, is particularly egregious.

the penalty of this for the consumer is probably $100 mo for many, and for many no longer being able to afford pay tv at all anymore. (an industry that made out great when 36-41 channels cost $6.95 - $10 mo with no contracts).

What the AF are you rambling on about. I am yielding my time to @RU4Real who may be able to educate you.

 

[retired711]

What the AF are you rambling on about. I am yielding my time to @RU4Real who may be able to educate you.

Maybe, but he's already tried. As have I. As have you.

 

[Knight Shift]

Maybe, but he's already tried. As have I. As have you.

You know what's kind of funny? Most young people (college kids and 20s) don't watch TV, have "cable," YouTubeTV or other streaming services that "bundle" channels. So the premise that pay TV is basically a "public utility" is incorrect because it is not a necessity like water or power (gas/electric). One can live a perfectly happy existence without pay TV.

Even for older people, I know many people in their 40s and 50s who do not have "pay TV" in the traditional sense. No cable contract, no YouTubeTV, etc. They get all of their entertainment and news from other media sources, namely print and/or the internet, or perhaps a limited streaming service such as Netflix or Paramount. IMO, consumers have many options in the areas of entertainment, media, news and sports. Sports may be the most difficult, but sports are not a life necessity.

Just spitballing on a Friday night.

WTF are TV carriage fees?

One of the foremost obstacles to TV network owners reorienting their businesses around streaming instead of traditional TV is giving up the revenue they receive from pay-TV providers that pay to carry their channels.

digiday.com

So You're Happy Carriage and Retrans Fees Are Slowly Fading Away? You Sure About That, Champ? (Wolk)

The largesse of retrans trickled down beyond the C-suite into high salaries for writers, actors, showrunners and producers, right down to high-end craft services spreads. Streaming? Not so much

www.nexttv.com

 

[retired711]

You know what's kind of funny? Most young people (college kids and 20s) don't watch TV, have "cable," YouTubeTV or other streaming services that "bundle" channels. So the premise that pay TV is basically a "public utility" is incorrect because it is not a necessity like water or power (gas/electric). One can live a perfectly happy existence without pay TV.

Even for older people, I know many people in their 40s and 50s who do not have "pay TV" in the traditional sense. No cable contract, no YouTubeTV, etc. They get all of their entertainment and news from other media sources, namely print and/or the internet, or perhaps a limited streaming service such as Netflix or Paramount. IMO, consumers have many options in the areas of entertainment, media, news and sports. Sports may be the most difficult, but sports are not a life necessity.

Just spitballing on a Friday night.

WTF are TV carriage fees?

One of the foremost obstacles to TV network owners reorienting their businesses around streaming instead of traditional TV is giving up the revenue they receive from pay-TV providers that pay to carry their channels.

digiday.com

So You're Happy Carriage and Retrans Fees Are Slowly Fading Away? You Sure About That, Champ? (Wolk)

The largesse of retrans trickled down beyond the C-suite into high salaries for writers, actors, showrunners and producers, right down to high-end craft services spreads. Streaming? Not so much

www.nexttv.com

Few people like the cable bundle -- I'm sure conservatives don't like having to pay for MSNBC as the price for getting Fox, or vice versa. But there's a difference between "bad" and "illegal."

We are simple people -- we stick to cable because we are, um, late adopters when it comes to technology. It's nice that Comcast can often give us access to streaming services like Peacock provided we subscribe.

 

[Knight Shift]

Few people like the cable bundle -- I'm sure conservatives don't like having to pay for MSNBC as the price for getting Fox, or vice versa. But there's a difference between "bad" and "illegal."

We are simple people -- we stick to cable because we are, um, late adopters when it comes to technology. It's nice that Comcast can often give us access to streaming services like Peacock provided we subscribe.

I would hope most people don't live in an echo chamber and only watch one variety of the news- StateTV and the non-StateTV? Maybe they do. I like to get perspectives from both sides, but maybe I'm the only lunatic that does that? IIRC, my 95 yo mother chose a basic local channel package for her home, and with a senior discount the monthly cost was quite low. I see comcast has a basic $25/month package. For those that live in single family homes, they could simply use an aerial antenna and get the channels for free.

 

[retired711]

I would hope most people don't live in an echo chamber and only watch one variety of the news- StateTV and the non-StateTV? Maybe they do. I like to get perspectives from both sides, but maybe I'm the only lunatic that does that? IIRC, my 95 yo mother chose a basic local channel package for her home, and with a senior discount the monthly cost was quite low. I see comcast has a basic $25/month package. For those that live in single family homes, they could simply use an aerial antenna and get the channels for free.

I think there are many people who watch at least two versions of the news -- but not two diametrically opposed views, such as MSNBC and Fox. (If anybody cares, I dislike both.)

There are a fair number of areas in New Jersey where interference (say, from airports, as in my area) hinders use of an aerial antenna. But you're right that there are low-cost options available for those who want only limited service.

 

[Knight Shift]

I think there are many people who watch at least two versions of the news -- but not two diametrically opposed views, such as MSNBC and Fox. (If anybody cares, I dislike both.)

There are a fair number of areas in New Jersey where interference (say, from airports, as in my area) hinders use of an aerial antenna. But you're right that there are low-cost options available for those who want only limited service.

News Nation, with awful ratings, is the best out there right now, IMO. And by StateTV, I mean the one that delivers the narrative of the party in power.

 

[Knight Shift]

.

 

[retired711]

News Nation, with awful ratings, is the best out there right now, IMO. And by StateTV, I mean the one that delivers the narrative of the party in power.

We're getting too close to making this political (and wrecking the thread) so I will resist the temptation to comment on News Nation.