WCVB in court today over simulcast

[MrBigglesWorth]

To the contrary, a majority of the games HAVE to be on free over-the-air TV, and in certain instances--such as the Super Bowl or perhaps playoff games--those too have to be on FREE TV.

Please tell me how they are free?

I pay for direct tv, then i have to pay extra for HD

I ordered the Sunday Ticket(2nd yr in a row) then I bought an HD tv in week 3. I had to pay an extra 100 to get Sunday ticket in HD.

Now for NBC, CBS, Fox games they are not commercial free. Every single citizen pays for the NFL partly by buying those advertising products. Beer anyone? I'm forced to watch 100 Peyton commercials.

If the games were commercial free it would be a different story.

 

[upstater1]

So if this game was on ESPN would it be your opinion that they would have to give it to an Over the Air Network, also? ESPN is a cable network and there is a fee to access it.

If this were the Super Bowl, then yes! ESPN would have to give up the rights.

As I said earlier, the only way that the NFL could be found to be in violation of the exemption would be if someone made a compelling argument with a "rationale" that they were not serving the public interest. Now, in that Indiana U. article I linked to, it's clear that threats have only been made in the past when the game has been inaccessible. So, since ESPN is not inaccessible, I doubt they would be asked to move a regular season game. But they COULD be asked.

So much depends on the whims of politicians, as I've explained. Someone has to come up with a "rationale." And I'm guessing that no politician would have made this argument at all if the game had been assigned to ESPN.

Look, I'm not even saying that the rationale would not be laughed at instantly the moment it was brought up in committee. I have no clue. But I do know that the Senators have an actual legal lever to use against the NFL.

 

[upstater1]

Please tell me how they are free?

I pay for direct tv, then i have to pay extra for HD

I ordered the Sunday Ticket(2nd yr in a row) then I bought an HD tv in week 3. I had to pay an extra 100 to get Sunday ticket in HD.

Now for NBC, CBS, Fox games they are not commercial free. Every single citizen pays for the NFL partly by buying those advertising products. Beer anyone? I'm forced to watch 100 Peyton commercials.

If the games were commercial free it would be a different story.

Huh? No one is forcing you to buy anything. I could watch the game in my underwear then starve to death without giving anyone another dime.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Huh? No one is forcing you to buy anything. I could watch the game in my underwear then starve to death without giving anyone another dime.

huh? his contention is that it is free tv and there really isn't such a thing as free tv. virtually every product(unless you buy all generic) has a portion allocated to advertising.

what kind of car do you drive?

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

It's a 2 way street, the Government officials are bending over backwards giving away the taxpayers money to keep/attract those teams.

Absolutely it is a 2 way street. If you are going to take public funding to provide the public with entertainment, you better entertain the public.

If you rely solely on private funding you have no responsibility to the public.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

Keep reading. I've brought up the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Sports Broadcasting Act, and a legal article explaining the evolution of the Sports Act into the cable era.

Legally, the NFL would not be compelled to show this specific game. However, if they are found in volation of their exemption, the exemption could be pulled by congress, and then they'd be up ****s creek. It's like playing Russian-roulette. You send your lawyers in, and the next thing you know, congressman who have been known to vote for bridges to nowhere in Alaska, have just ripped away your exemption, and then you're up ****'s creek!

I agree, there are exemptions, regulations, etc that the NFL has to follow. This digresses from what the original poster was pointing out. He has no right to "free" because he buys their other products. Just because I show up at Chilis every Thursday for free wings, does not guarantee me free beer (as much as I have tried to convince them of that).

I am under no illusions either that the NFL is not acting in their own self interest here either. This was their only "honorable" way out.

 

[upstater1]

huh? his contention is that it is free tv and there really isn't such a thing as free tv. virtually every product(unless you buy all generic) has a portion allocated to advertising.

what kind of car do you drive?

Subaru?

I mean, if I drove a Skoda which has never advertised during a football game, would I be off the hook?

What if I deliberately went out of my way to not purchase a product of anyone who advertised during an NFL game? Wouldn't that be something?

I'd drink Saranac beer, eat steak, drive my Skoda, etc. and never give them a dime.

Then again, I'm posting on a computer, and for the life of me I can't understand why Apple was advertising during the 1984 Super Bowl since geeky nerdy Apple guys was nowhere near the target demographic.

Apple and GoDaddy.com have taken huge losses advertising during the Super Bowl.

Beer and pickup truck makers have made a lot of money.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Subaru?

I mean, if I drove a Skoda which has never advertised during a football game, would I be off the hook?

What if I deliberately went out of my way to not purchase a product of anyone who advertised during an NFL game? Wouldn't that be something?

I'd drink Saranac beer, eat steak, drive my Skoda, etc. and never give them a dime.

Then again, I'm posting on a computer, and for the life of me I can't understand why Apple was advertising during the 1984 Super Bowl since geeky nerdy Apple guys was nowhere near the target demographic.

Apple and GoDaddy.com have taken huge losses advertising during the Super Bowl.

Beer and pickup truck makers have made a lot of money.

have you checked out APPLE sotck lately? If you invested years ago you'd be all set.

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

Absolutely it is a 2 way street. If you are going to take public funding to provide the public with entertainment, you better entertain the public.

If you rely solely on private funding you have no responsibility to the public.

To what extent? Should the government insist that all games be viewed free of charge. What about setting ticket prices and parking rates?

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

To what extent? Should the government insist that all games be viewed free of charge. What about setting ticket prices and parking rates?

To a reasonable extent. Granted then we argue what is reasonable.

I would say making the Greenbay-Dallas game NFLN only in Mass is fine. But all of Wisc and Tex get it on ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox.

Likewise making Giants-Patriots NFLN only in Wisc is fine, but all of Mass (not just Boston, Western Mass too) and NJ get it on ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox.

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

To a reasonable extent. Granted then we argue what is reasonable.

I would say making the Greenbay-Dallas game NFLN only in Mass is fine. But all of Wisc and Tex get it on ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox.

Likewise making Giants-Patriots NFLN only in Wisc is fine, but all of Mass (not just Boston, Western Mass too) and NJ get it on ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox.

You just blew off Maine, NH, RI, Conn, Vt and NY

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

It is not entirely clear to me that the premise of many of these arguments is even correct in the first place.

The premise is that pooled broadcasting/national tv contracts violate the antitrust laws and thus need an antitrust exemption, as was provided by Congress in 1961.

The premise is supported, as I understand it, solely by a single 1961 court decision by a single district court judge in the eastern district of Pennsylvania. To read some of this stuff, you'd think it was a clear federal statute or a ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Getting away from the law and just talking about the issue as a matter of good or bad public policy, I really can't see why government is messing with the market in such dramatic fashion here. Most laws are stringently designed to protect intellectual property. The NFL has a copyright in something that is very desired, and they should be able to do what they like with it.

If cable doesn't want to pony up for NFLN, so be it. Seems like a risky strategy to me for NFLN to be too hardcore. Eventually, they need cable more than cable needs them, but that's their game of chicken to play, not mine. And cable's decisions are not NFLN's fault. Similarly, when the NFL negotiated its contracts with the networks and decided to hold back games for itself, cable could have tried to come in and bridge the gap, or otherwise attempted to enter the fray at that time by putting together their own bid for cable-owned stations. But claims that there we americans are entitled to another's copyright if they don't want to give it seem a bit exaggerated to me.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

You just blew off Maine, NH, RI, Conn, Vt and NY

I realize that and I live in NY. But my tax dollars don't fund either the razor or the New Jersey Giants stadium.

 

[elandadem]

I realize that and I live in NY. But my tax dollars don't fund either the razor or the New Jersey Giants stadium.

Neither did anyone elses. That is sadly unique.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Neither did anyone elses. That is sadly unique.

They didn't get direct cash, but they did get tax breaks. Which in a way is funding.

 

[PatsFan#37]

Right or wrong, good or bad, I don't give a dam. I get to watch the Patriots play. :rocker:

I've long sinced cared what happens to big corporations, the bottom line is "how does that effect me". Its only a football game, not a life changing event, so I DON"T CARE.

God damn....thank you .....I agree....:rocker:

 

[SpiderFox53]

I don't believe the NFL is willing to expand the Sunday Ticket beyond Direct TV - their deals with the broadcast networks preclude it. They will not offer it to cable or the other satellite provider. I know Dish Network would gladly take it on the same terms.

The NFL ticket package doesn't affect the Over the Air broadcast of NFL games at all. The local teams are still shown on thier respective local channels over the air and they are blacked out locally on the ticket. I don't see how the contracts with the over the air companies would affect the NFL marketing the ticket to the other cable companies at all. I don't remember exactly what the article I read said on this subject, and I'm way to lazy to go looking for it, but I seem to recall the reasoning in continuing the exclusive contract with Directv was a direct result of the cable companies not wanting to comply with the NFL's directives on how it is carried.

 

[upstater1]

have you checked out APPLE sotck lately? If you invested years ago you'd be all set.

I doubt investors are watching Super Bowl commercials for ideas about investing their money.

 

[upstater1]

To what extent? Should the government insist that all games be viewed free of charge. What about setting ticket prices and parking rates?

Specifically, the NFL does not have an antitrust exemption the way that Baseball does. That's why leagues like the AFL and USFL popped up. Whereas Baseball has never been challenged.

The specific antitrust exemption for the NFL only concerns their broadcast TV rights which allows the league to pool money and distribute it equitably among all teams.

So, the government can only interfere with regard to how the NFL broadcasts games.

Some weird things to consider about the legality of all this: first off, the NFL is no longer bound by the blackout rule that the Senate created under Nixon. If the NFL wanted to, they could black out a game many days in advance, instead of the few days in advance they use now. The original rule expired in 1975, but the NFL hasn't violated it.

Since many cable companies also have certain antitrust exemptions, many people in Congress are talking about regulating cable the same way that the nation's free public airwaves are regulated. If that goes through (and logically it should if you're basing it on the rationale for public airwaves) then the government will have even more control over broadcasts.

 

[upstater1]

It is not entirely clear to me that the premise of many of these arguments is even correct in the first place.

The premise is that pooled broadcasting/national tv contracts violate the antitrust laws and thus need an antitrust exemption, as was provided by Congress in 1961.

The premise is supported, as I understand it, solely by a single 1961 court decision by a single district court judge in the eastern district of Pennsylvania. To read some of this stuff, you'd think it was a clear federal statute or a ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Getting away from the law and just talking about the issue as a matter of good or bad public policy, I really can't see why government is messing with the market in such dramatic fashion here. Most laws are stringently designed to protect intellectual property. The NFL has a copyright in something that is very desired, and they should be able to do what they like with it.

If cable doesn't want to pony up for NFLN, so be it. Seems like a risky strategy to me for NFLN to be too hardcore. Eventually, they need cable more than cable needs them, but that's their game of chicken to play, not mine. And cable's decisions are not NFLN's fault. Similarly, when the NFL negotiated its contracts with the networks and decided to hold back games for itself, cable could have tried to come in and bridge the gap, or otherwise attempted to enter the fray at that time by putting together their own bid for cable-owned stations. But claims that there we americans are entitled to another's copyright if they don't want to give it seem a bit exaggerated to me.

It's a law passed by congress. Whether it's constitutional or not needs to be challenged by whomever is damaged by the law, if they feel it's unfair. The law hasn't been challenged for 40 odd years. Since it's a law, it has to be followed, obviously.

I'm really missing the rest of your argument about entitlement to copyrights. The missing factor in that argument is this: we, as a public, own the infrastructure that allows broadcasts to be disseminated in the first place. It's as though I wrote a book, had it published, then when the distributor started biting into my cut, I told him, you have no right taking my money from me. He would say, buddy, it's my channel you're pushing this through, so stuff it.

Put it this way: the NFL doesn't own any infrastructure to disseminate and distribute its intellectual property. Instead, it relies on the distributor to do it, the TV networks and cable companies. Both the TV networks and cable companies are piggybacking onto public airwaves and infrastructure (coaxial cable) that are owned by the US public at large (in terms of airwaves) and localities (in terms of cable).

The NFL, if it wanted to, has the right not to broadcast anything. It has every freedom to do whatever it so desires with its product. The only hitch is that they want to keep their antitrust exemption which is only given to companies that serve the public interest.