OT: Oh boy! Specter is going to go after the NFL Now

[Rob0729]

Looks like an appeals court threw out a ruling that said that Comcast could package the NFL Network as part as their sports package (and charge for it). Now both sides have to battle it out again. I am sure Comcast was on the phone to Specter to turn up the heat on the Spygate investigation to pressure the NFL to backdown.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3265848

 

[shmessy]

Looks like an appeals court threw out a ruling that said that Comcast could package the NFL Network as part as their sports package (and charge for it). Now both sides have to battle it out again. I am sure Comcast was on the phone to Specter to turn up the heat on the Spygate investigation to pressure the NFL to backdown.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3265848

Does this mean I can get my $5 per month back from Comcast?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Does this mean I can get my $5 per month back from Comcast?

Probably not.

(I wish I was joking)

 

[NEP-tune]

Does this mean I can get my $5 per month back from Comcast?

$5 a month???? Wow.. That was my "Intoductory-Trial Rate" with Comcast. After 3 months (which expired in Oct, 07) the "regular" Sports Package Rate is now $12.95/ month. :bricks:

But on the bright side, I get the flippin' GOLF Channel... Wahoo!! (sigh)

 

[BostonBullit]

hehe, that's the first thing I thought of when I read that article...man, ol Specter is gonna be on fire now!

people on the ESPN talkback are more upset that they can't get Sunday Ticket on cable and yelling at the NFL about that rather than NFLN....too bad the league offered the Sunday Ticket program up to the cable companies and the brain trust at the cable companies said "interesting idea, but we'd rather offer each and every game that is played every weekend as its own individual pay-per-view event, that's the model we're used to". so it stays on the satallite :bricks:

 

[IcyPatriot]

Does this mean I can get my $5 per month back from Comcast?

it does prove my point that Spectacle is going upriver with no paddle.

 

[Keegs]

Does this mean I can get my $5 per month back from Comcast?

that's unfair.

It's 7 dollars a month for me.

Which is way more than it should be considering that i have to listen to Marshall Faulk

 

[patsfan-1982]

i dont pay for nfl net will i dont think i do i did get a package that gives me every CH so i dont know

 

[Patriot_dynasty]

HD it's for FREE!

 

[NEP-tune]

that's unfair.

It's 7 dollars a month for me.

Which is way more than it should be considering that i have to listen to Marshall Faulk

Imagine!!! $12.95 to listen to Marshall Faulk.. The outrage!!!

 

[NEPatriot]

Specter needs to listen '1 is a lonely number' song.

 

[ctsports]

people on the ESPN talkback are more upset that they can't get Sunday Ticket on cable and yelling at the NFL about that rather than NFLN....too bad the league offered the Sunday Ticket program up to the cable companies and the brain trust at the cable companies said "interesting idea, but we'd rather offer each and every game that is played every weekend as its own individual pay-per-view event, that's the model we're used to". so it stays on the satallite :bricks:

I don't think that is true. My cable offers Extra Innings, Center Ice, etc. so they are quite familiar with the concept of offering a season subscription. Sunday Ticket is limited to satellite because they were willing to pay a fortune for an exclusive contract.

 

[pheenix11]

If Specter can take down the NFL and force them to make Sunday Ticket available on cable, I might even move to PA and vote for him.

I really don't want to get Directv.

 

[shmessy]

If Specter can take down the NFL and force them to make Sunday Ticket available on cable, I might even move to PA and vote for him.

I really don't want to get Directv.

You have it backwards. Specter is fighting for the right for Comcast to charge you an unnecessary, additional fee in addition to the MUCH lower fee for the direct product that the NFLN charges.

It's COMCAST that must back down.

The product is made by the NFL. Comcast is just the middle man (i.e. The NFL is the medecine, Comcast is the HMO).

 

[SECTION 214]

nice article at abcnews.com regarding our boy Specter....

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/Story?id=4344949&page=1

"congress hears boos over hearings"
it appears that america and many of our lawmakers are a little concerned with SPecters use of his time and tax payer $$$

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

HD it's for FREE!

I don't mean to hijack the thread here...

The NFL-N is free on HD regardless of if you get the comcast sports pack?

 

[shmessy]

nice article at abcnews.com regarding our boy Specter....

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/Story?id=4344949&page=1

"congress hears boos over hearings"
it appears that america and many of our lawmakers are a little concerned with SPecters use of his time and tax payer $$$

Actually, that is incompetent journalism.

The writer makes no mention of Specter's financial motives. Just assumes it's because he's an "Eagles fan". The writer fell for the same smokescreen Specter (and Comcast) wants us all to believe.

 

[SECTION 214]

Actually, that is incompetent journalism.

The writer makes no mention of Specter's financial motives. Just assumes it's because he's an "Eagles fan". The writer fell for the same smokescreen Specter (and Comcast) wants us all to believe.

I understand your point. We all would have liked to have seen the writer dive into Spectors ties with Comcast and divulge a sentence or two tieing this together. However I do think its a little over the top to call it "incompetent journalism." The writer does question Spectors motives and does a good job of making him come off as a jackass. Any article that casts a shadowof doubt on the credability of Spector and his motives is good PR for the Pats organization and fan base.

 

[shmessy]

Actually, that is incompetent journalism.

The writer makes no mention of Specter's financial motives. Just assumes it's because he's an "Eagles fan". The writer fell for the same smokescreen Specter (and Comcast) wants us all to believe.

I understand your point. We all would have liked to have seen the writer dive into Spectors ties with Comcast and divulge a sentence or two tieing this together. However I do think its a little over the top to call it "incompetent journalism." The writer does question Spectors motives and does a good job of making him come off as a jackass. Any article that casts a shadowof doubt on the credability of Spector and his motives is good PR for the Pats organization and fan base.

Wrong. A Senator cannot be censured for being an over-the-top fan. He CAN be censured (or worse) for taking bribes from a corporation to press it's agenda. How far off is this situation from Duke Cunningham's? It isn't under the table, I'll give you that, but it still is the same.