- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 43,530
- Reaction score
- 24,123
I did not say it was an inalienable right for anyone to watch what football they desire. But it is an issue of fair buisness practices.
No its not. Its an issue of you not understanding what you are talking about.
My history is a bit rusty,but the Sherman Act did say something about not allowing a monopoly. My interpretation is both in the case with EA sports and DirectTV they violated the spirt of anti-trust regulation by leveraging thier penetration into the market to cut-off competion simply by buying the market away.(No real different then microsoft, bell, or stadard oil)
As QuiGon pointed out, DirecTV does NOT have a monopoly. Nor does Electronic Arts. They have exclusive licensing agreements for the NFL PRODUCT. If you are going to complain, then your complaint should be with the NFL for deciding that having an exclusive contract with EA and DirecTV. Not with DirecTV and EA for out-bidding other vendors who also wished to provide a product.
You really should learn what the Anti-Trust laws and Anti-Monopoly laws are intended to do because its clear that you don't know.
However, the current laize-faire econmic policies of the United States fail to address the issue, unlike other countries where anti-trust regulation is actually enforced. This is why we are 10 some years behind in broadband technology and pitiful when it comes to wireless access.
Though such discussions are proably best for another venue.
Man, you really don't know what you are talking about. Its not the lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws that have the US behind other countries in offering better internet services. Not to mention a total exaggeration that the US is 10 years behind the curve when it comes to wireless access.
That being said, you are right. This is better off in the political forum.