Senators threaten NFL - Yes!

xmarkd400x said:

Where do you watch your Red Sox games? NESN. Where do you watch your Yankees games? YES Network. Where do you watch your NFL games? Free over the air television.

The NFL is just trying to get it's piece of the pie, just like other sports networks already have. However, I do not know all of the facts and whether or not the NFL's piece of the pie is deserved. For example, the Red Sox and Yankees own their own TV networks, not MLB. Could the Patriots own their own network? Not currently. I'm just rambling... anyways...

Click to expand...

The NBA and NHL have their own networks and I believe MLB has plans for one in the very near future, either '08 or '09. I believe Time Warner offers the NBA channel in the same package they want to add the NFLN to. Comcast has all three and a few more in a package for $4.99 a month.

frankiesfly said:

I had a dish and watched 5 channels on it so I didn't need it. By the way are you one of the new bandwagon Pats fans that just decided to come here and become a fan because your sorry ass Panthers are the worst team in the NFL. You have no right to even be on this board or even talk about the Pats living in Charlotte. You sorry ass. Bandwagon lost soul.

Click to expand...

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU telling him he can't be a Pats fan and live in Charlotte? First and foremost, there are MANY MANY MORE Pats fans living outside New England than there were 10 years ago. I am one of them you sorry arse piece of garbage. And I've been following the Pats since 1982 when I lived in New England. How the hell do you know he didn't to Charlotte from New England?

Its POG fans like yourself who don't deserve to be on this board or talking Patriots. YOU are the sorry arse, Frankie.

Charlotte Pats Fan said:

You really want 86 NFL teams just because someones got enough money to afford a team?

Click to expand...

Sure why not. Let the MARKET decide. If you believe in Capatilism and freedom of choice and free markets why not..

5 Rings for Brady!! said:

Looks like the carefully orchestrated dog and pony show of the NFL ownership has had unforseen reprecussions.

The NFL figured that they would piss off the entire country by showing the Cowboys on the NFL Network and then turn around and sue cable providers so they could further line their pockets with gold at the expense of the fans and the teams (with stupid scheduling hardships). Well, they did manage to piss people off so they could try to put the heat on the cable companies and tell the cable companies how to run their business.

But apparently the NFL owners want to tell the cable companies what to do, but don't want to be told what to do by the government.

Sucks to be a rich NFL owner, don't it?

Click to expand...

The Government, particularly Schurmer, is over-stepping its legal bounds here. First and foremost, I can guarantee you that the NFL doesn't make nearly the money the Cable Companies make. Secondly, the cable companies charge EVERYONE for HD programming regardless of whether or not they actually have it. OH... You didn't know that? Hmm.. That's why there was a 15% increase last year in cable prices (on avg.)

There is NO REASON why the Cable companies can't set up NFLN in their "basic" package with the option to OPT out. Its the "ala carte" system. And, unlike the casble companies BS claims, they wouldn't have to raise the rates of ALL their customers.

Phokus said:

When the federal gov't broke up the AT&T monopoly, the consumers benefited greatly. I'm not so sure about this situation, but when there's a big monopolistics/oligopoly, it can be beneficial for everyone for gov't to get involved.

Click to expand...

OT, but I came across a great illustrated history of the Ma Bell breakup a couple months ago. Others may find it stimulating:



A better version is available at:
http://www.freepress.net/content/atthistory

aabtec said:

Sure why not. Let the MARKET decide. If you believe in Capatilism and freedom of choice and free markets why not..

Click to expand...

So, you are in favor of subjecting everyone to an inferior product because the talent pool will become so diluted that it will be the equivalent of watching Pee Wee football, but having to pay exhorbinant prices to do so..

Great sense there...

1st of all, Capitalism IS in play. That is what you don't seem to be understanding.

2ndly, You have freedom of choice currently. Why not actually do some homework on what the results have been in terms of consumer prices in areas where the product was de-regulated (phones, utilities, etc). I think you'll be extremely surprised what you find. OH, names like Enron and WorldCom should give you a hint.

3rdly, taking the anti-trust agreement away from the NFL would not guarantee a free market for the consumer. In fact, it would do the exact opposite. It would limit, even further, what you'd be able to watch.

DaBruinz said:

Why not actually do some homework on what the results have been in terms of consumer prices in areas where the product was de-regulated (phones, utilities, etc).

Click to expand...

Did my homework in 1984 a 5 min call from NY to LA cost $2.70. Now it about 25 cents. And keep in mind those are not inflation adjusted numbers.

Hok said:

Remind me again why the government feels the need to insert itself into the private sector in the first place?

Click to expand...

Anti trust laws are put in place to prevent the monoplazation of a buisness etc. If the NFL will only show its product on its terms, and there is no other alternative the government can step in for the over all good of the consumer because the NFL is restricting compatition in the market. GOT IT

kurtinelson said:

Great idea, Senators! Let's circumvent the process of free market economics and ruin the league by taking away it's antitrust exemption!

Click to expand...

Sine economics is my business let me educate you a bit. Anti-trust law is to maintain the free market, not destroy it. Exemptions are not good and anti-trust law is not enforced nearly enough.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie said:

Did my homework in 1984 a 5 min call from NY to LA cost $2.70. Now it about 25 cents. And keep in mind those are not inflation adjusted numbers.

Click to expand...

And what about energy prices? People are paying MORE now for Nat gas and propane at their homes than EVER before.

As for the Phones, when you forget to include all the other charges, you'd be correct. However, many of those didn't exist back in 1984. Also, what is the base rate you paid in 1984 compared to now.

OH, and, as was pointed out, What's been the result of the de-regulation? You've now got 3 large phone companies who control the commercial phone market.

Many people don't realize how far behind the US is in phone technology compared to Japan. And the companies are pocketing money hand over fist and laughing at the consumer because we don't require MORE from them.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie said:

Did my homework in 1984 a 5 min call from NY to LA cost $2.70. Now it about 25 cents. And keep in mind those are not inflation adjusted numbers.

Click to expand...

Keep doing that homework. For one, the monopoly is still in place with the local carriers (mine is Verizon) still controlling the market. No successful competing technology has really supplanted the locals, especially now with Verizon offering FiOS and controlling the quadruple play. Second, check out your local line charges. You pay far more now than in 1984.

The flaw in this argument is that you can't compare the monopoly that was the Bell system to the NFL. It's not even close, and there are good reasons why the NFL and MLB are given some allowances in the antitrust laws.

ClevTrev said:

Keep doing that homework. For one, the monopoly is still in place with the local carriers (mine is Verizon) still controlling the market. No successful competing technology has really supplanted the locals, especially now with Verizon offering FiOS and controlling the quadruple play. Second, check out your local line charges. You pay far more now than in 1984.

The flaw in this argument is that you can't compare the monopoly that was the Bell system to the NFL. It's not even close, and there are good reasons why the NFL and MLB are given some allowances in the antitrust laws.

Click to expand...

There were good reasons for the phone monopoly when it was created. And really I don't think the senator's goal is to break up the NFL. The NFL is taking advantage of the monopoly. They can keep the monopoly they just need to treat the fans fair.

scout said:

Sure glad they don't have more pressing issues.

Click to expand...

Yeah, like internet poker...

I thought baseball was the only sport that had anti-trust exemption. I think they need to be clear the NFL enjoys anti-trust consideration not exemption.

An Open Letter to the NFL

New England does not mean Boston and eastern Mass.

The New England Patriots are team supported by a regional fan base (among others).

This is the website and a screenshot of the CBS affliate in Presque Isle, Maine. I do not live there, although I did as a child. The people who live there are New Englanders; they live in New England; they should be part of the New England Broadcast Region. Which means they should receive the games Over The Air.

Get the picture? It would be nice if they could!!!

http://www.wagmtv.com/index2.php

TheGodInAGreyHoodie said:

There were good reasons for the phone monopoly when it was created.

Click to expand...

Yes, at the time the bell system was built up in the early 1900s, there were good reasons. However, to open up the market and enable the US consumers to adopt new communications technologies AND prevent the Bells from controlling everything from a phone call to the equipment they mandated you use, it had to go when it did.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie said:

And really I don't think the senator's goal is to break up the NFL. The NFL is taking advantage of the monopoly. They can keep the monopoly they just need to treat the fans fair.

Click to expand...

The senators' only goal is to get the NFL's attention. As stated in a previous post, the Cable Companies are being ignored. This is ridiculous if you look at how they control their customers and are forcing them to take their program schedules at the Cable Companies' prices. Don't overlook this element in this argument, as it's the real slime in the gutter for the most part.

ClevTrev said:

Second, check out your local line charges. You pay far more now than in 1984.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I live in a small town so I'm stuck with Verizon and I was paying $70 a month for two lines before I even picked up the phone. So I switched one to a cell and still pay $35 for the line but get free calling. Land lines are VERY expensive.

mgcolby said:

You should really go back and read up on the situation. Both parties are equally at fault. By the way Comcast offers it in a "sports" tier for an extra 5 bucks a month. So the majority of the people in the country between Directv, Comcast, DishNetwork and a bunch of smaller cable companies have access to the channel. The NFL wants it to be a part of the cable companies base package at a $1.?? per customer. The Cable companies, mainly Time Warner and Comcast (already has), want to add it to a tier package that the customer has to subscribe to. Both are out to make as much money off of it as possible. To paint the NFL owners solely as the bad guys is short sighted.

I understand both parties point and the Cable company would have a more valid argument, if they didn't clutter up the basic package with a bunch of crap channels that they don't mind having every customer pay for, regardless of the overall viewership numbers.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but my grasp on the situation is perfectly lucid.

My only personal concern in the situation is that the Thursday night thing is going to put a lot of strain on player's health. Period.

As far as pin the tail on the guilty party, there is plenty to go around. I am sure those rich owners feel like they can boss around cable companies, but they probably don't like dem apples when it comes from the gov't.

And of course leave it up to fans to pick sides, as if it sucks that the gov't is getting involved, but it is okay when the NFL is suing cable companies over what cable companies want to do with their own business.

I don't have a horse in this race.

aabtec said:

Sure why not. Let the MARKET decide. If you believe in Capatilism and freedom of choice and free markets why not..

Click to expand...

The talent pool would be so dilluted that the final product wouldn't be worth watching.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie said:

There were good reasons for the phone monopoly when it was created. And really I don't think the senator's goal is to break up the NFL. The NFL is taking advantage of the monopoly. They can keep the monopoly they just need to treat the fans fair.

Click to expand...

Were you b!tching when the Red Sox stopped broadcasting the home games on local channels? How about when the Bruins stopped broadcasting home games on local channels? If not, why not? How are the Bruins and Red Sox NOT taking advantage of the NHL and MLB monopolies?

The "phone monopoly" was there because, for the LONGEST TIME, it was considered a public utility. Television, to my knowledge, has NEVER been considered a public utility.

Why does the NFL have its anti-trust agreements? Do you REALLY believe its to protect the "FREE MARKET" and not so it has only one labor entity to deal with in terms of a labor agreement?

Neither the NFL or the Cable companies have been fully honest. The cable companies have the technology to offer an "ALA CARTE" menu to people. However, they chose not to because they'd rather shove 10 tons of crap down your thrown and sweet talk you into believing its candy. Also, the cable companies could EASILY eliminate channels that just don't have the viewership (C-SPAN, C-SPAN2) and offer them on a request basis.

As for the NFL, I can't say that the $.70 a subscriber is exactly outrageous as there are companies that actually charge 2-3 times MORE than that. The only reason that the Cable companies want you to believe it would be bad for the consumer is because they sure as hell aren't going to eat the cost. And they'd rather gouge the consumer than make minor adjusts to their systems.