To become successful in business it is essential to have a dog eat dog mentality as your competition may attempt to work the legal systems to gain a competitive advantage against you. That is exactly how Shell describes legislation, regulation, and litigation uses as an advantage for firms in his book titled Make the Rules or Your Rivals Will. The first example, network TV companies (Fox, CBS and ABC) vs. satellite TV companies (DirecTV, Dish Network, and PrimeTime 24), demonstrates how the customer plays a key part in the way legislation is shaped to benefit both parties. The second example, RCA vs. CBS, demonstrates how they used regulation to set the color TV standard in the 1950’s in an effort to force the markets to use their products. The third and last …show more content…
Older cable networks like Fox, CBS and ABC have been around long enough to have seen their fair share of legislation in the marketplace. These three companies’ network, as an example, are typically broadcasted to other parts of the country via satellite companies like DirecTV, Dish Network, and PrimeTime 24. These same satellite companies found loopholes in the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988. This act simply outlines the set of regulations which govern the transmissions of television stations in the United States, specifically imposing the restriction of satellite carriers broadcasting network stations only to subscribers who cannot receive broadcasts via antenna and have not subscribed to a cable broadcast system. The direct effect of this loophole was that local networks like Fox, CBS and ABC saw fewer viewership numbers as a result of these satellite companies broadcasting their channels from different regions. This allowed customers to see sports matchups and see news broadcasts from outside their area. As for the satellite companies, their numbers drastically got
The role of law reform has been exceedingly significant and effective in protecting the rights of consumers. The amendments and reforms made to the failure of existing laws have certainly increased the protection for consumers, improving access and awareness, however loopholes still exist that detracts from the overall effectiveness of the legal system in protecting consumers. Therefore, indicating that further reforms are required to improve the effectiveness of the legal system.
"We have an extremely antiquated Broadcasting Act," he said. "Things get old. People get old. Legislation gets old. We 're looking for a refresh of the Broadcasting Act. It 's a reasonable request." Entwistle suggested that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission(CRTC) should displace the Canadian Television Fund with a fund created and manage by company such as TELUS. (POST, 2006)Although his suggestions drew the CRTC’s attention, the Conservative government had already set the plan to the CRTC. However, Entwistle is brave and astute to strive for the maximum benefits, not only for TELUS, but also the Canada government and the whole
“Processor Editorial Article - Antitrust Laws: Not Just For The Big Boys.” Editorial.Processor 19 Nov. 2004: 27+. Processor.com. Web. 29 Nov. 2011 .
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 can be termed as a major overhaul of the communications law in the past sixty-two years. The main aim of this Act is to enable any communications firm to enter the market and compete against one another based on fair and just practices (“The Telecommunications Act 1996,” The Federal Communications Commission). This Act has the potential to radically change the lives of the people in a number of different ways. For instance it has affected the telephone services both local and long distance, cable programming and other video services, broadcast services and services provided to schools. The Federal Communications Commission has actively endorsed this Act and has worked towards the enforcement and implementation of the various clauses listed in the document. The Act was basically brought into existence in order to promote competition and reduce regulation so that lower prices and higher quality services for the Americans consumers may be secured.
Due to compression, TV audio and video require less bandwidth and multiple digital TV channels can fit unto one satellite transponder as oppose to a single analogue channel occupying the whole transmission line.
Dish.com reports that in order for Dish TV to progress its place in the rising customer satellite broadband market, among other reasons, DISH decided on Feb. 20, 2014 to implement a deal with EchoStar Corporation and its subsidiaries that allows for DISH to transfer to EchoStar. On March 1, 2014 five of its satellites and about $11 million in cash in exchange for shares of two series of preferred tracking stock, and for DISH to contract back certain satellite capacity on those five satellites. The tracking stock will symbolize a collective 80 percent economic interest in the residential retail satellite broadband business of EchoStar’s subsidiary, Hughes Network Systems, LLC. BloombergBuisnessWeek.com reports that Dish TV also spent more on marketing and promotional offers to decrease its churn rate to 1.42 percent from 1.47 percent a year ago. Most notably, the Dish TV has been able to reduce the percentage of sales devoted to income tax expense from 2.52% to 2.16%. This was the main reason that led to a bottom line growth from $636.7M USD to $807.5M. Earnings from continuing operations were 38 cents a share. Analysts had projected 44 cents on average, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Net income fell to $175.9 million or 38 cents a share, from $215.6 million, or 47 cents. The average monthly bill for a Dish
Many businesses used this new process to raise the price of their competitors. They did this by putting constraints on entry restrictions (Woods 1986). At the state level, other laws were put in place to support the Food and Drug Act mainly to help local and area producers who were and would be facing new nat...
This paper will discuss these regulatory impacts monetarily through the analysis of the competitiveness of business in America in contrast
Predatory pricing “is alleged to occur when a firm sets a price for its product that is below some measure of cost and forfeits revenues in the short run to put competitors out of business” (Sheffet p.163-164). The reason firms take the short term loss is because they hope to drive out competitors and raise prices to monopolistic levels. By doing this, they covered their short term loss to make even greater profits in the long term than they would have by not using predatory tactics (Sheffert). Predatory pricing became illegal under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. It has remained one of the more difficult allegations for prosecutors to prove, due to the complexity of determining the company’s actual intent and whether or not it the strategy is competitive pricing. According to Areeda and Turner, there are three ways to determine if a firm is implementing predatory pricing. First, a price above marginal cost is presumed lawful; second, a price below marginal cost is considered unlawful, except when there is strong demand; and third, average variable cost is considered a good proxy for marginal cost. This is a reason predatory pricing is still important today. The courts must decide whether or not companies are engaging in competitive prices for the good of the consumers or are using predatory tactics for the good of their own company. The purpose of this paper is to focus on the current legislation regarding predatory pricing, determining when there is predation in an industry and the cause and effect relationship it has on an industry.
By 1950, 70 cable systems served 14,000 subscribers nationwide. In late 1950s, when cable operators began to take advantage of their ability to pick up broadcast signals from hundreds of miles access to these "distant signals" changed the focus of cable's role from one of transmitting local broadcast signals to one of providing new programming choices.
The history behind competition law is marked back from Roman Empire. The overall business performance of guilds, governments and market traders has been the focus to inspection and at times serious approvals. Subsequently in 20th century,
The ongoing argument today is on whether or not regulation is morally right and desirable. One one hand it has been said that government regulation has been accused of stifling innovation, accelerating inflation, increasing unemployment, and decreasing international competitiveness. On the other hand it has been said that the point of regulatory agencies in a capitalist society is to maintain broad popular legitimation of the system while promoting corporate accumulation of profits. Along with this idea the only way of making this happen is by adopting regulation that only symbolizes governmental oversight, because regulatory agency effectiveness is severely limited by inadequate budgets and pro-industry regulatory board members who develop specific rules that favor industry
As such, there has been an increase of networks starting up their own streaming services such as; Amazon Prime, Kodi TV, Netflix, Hulu, ESPN GO, HBO Go, etc. Never the less, when the consumer was faced with the decision of which service is cost-effective, streaming services such as buying Hulu, Netflix, Kodi, Amazon, etc. prevails saving the average American around $20 or higher a month. In addition, for those who are just wanting to watch local TV channels have decided to buy a HD Digital Antenna in combination with the streaming services. The countless combinations of alternate TV
William O. Douglas said, "Common sense often makes good law." Well that is what laws essentially are, rules and regulations that make sure common sense is followed. One could even say that laws are enforced ethics. Laws serve several roles and functions in business and society, and this paper will discuss those roles and functions.
Sources:Strategy and the Business Landscape, by Pankaj GhemawatBritish Satellite Broadcasting versus Sky Television. Harvard Business School Case