Senators threaten NFL - Yes!

[oldskool138]

Hey, I've had PatriotsReign on my ignored list for a while. Why does he always post two posts at a time? Just curious.

 

[fourthandmiles]

And another thing, when cable first started in the 70's or something the idea was if you paid a subscription for a service you would not see advertising. now there are stations on cable that are all infomercials.

NFLN and NFL has the best of all worlds in my opinion. They get $ for subscriptions in the form of sports packages (I assume, correct me if I am wrong) they get $ from the networks for over the air broadcasts. They get Direct TV $. And the get advertiser $ from NFLN.

I get my network games and that is it. I can't afford any other subscription services. Take anymore away and you they lose another viewer. Add NFLN to my existing cable package and they gain a viewer. (Who watch their commercials, despite already paying for cable ).

 

[ClevTrev]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but perhaps what I said to DaBruinz will help. I think you might not know the basic issue? Also, your point about streaming makes no sense. Just as many people don't have high speed internet, many don't have cable and some don't even have tvs.

OK, I'm starting to understand that you like to debate things about which you have no fundamental understanding or knowledge. You've developed a view because "it feels right" but have no understanding of the reality in the situation. You believe that the NFL owns the blame for the situation with the NFL Network and game broadcasts, and you're referring to it as a monopoly. Nothing could be further from the truth. On top of that, you choose to ignore the conflict of interest and potential antitrust behavior of the Cable Companies who both carry (broadcast) and produce programming that they favor by putting it in their basic package (no additional charge to the consumer) over programming that they don't produce and force into a premium package. Here is a quote from an FCC CATV fact sheet regarding this practice:

Vertical Ownership Restrictions
To prevent vertically integrated cable systems from unduly favoring their affiliated programmers over non-affiliated program providers, the Commission imposes a 40% limit on the number of channels that can be occupied by video programmers affiliated with the particular cable system. In this context, vertical integration refers to common ownership of both cable systems and program networks, channels, services or production companies. For purposes of determining common ownership, all interests of 5% or greater are recognized unless there is no possibility of such interests exerting control or influence over the cable system.

Now, if you are truly for the people (consumers) in this situation, you'll make an earnest attempt to understand that there is more than one villain in this case, and that the Cables are exhibiting predatory behavior in favoring their own programming over programs produced by another. Oh, conflict of interest you might conclude? Yes, it would be that. And the FCC used to regulate that practice more stringently. The NFL is attempting to provide its programming in two tiers: 1) Paid tier for the NFL Sunday ticket which allows viewers to see all games not broadcast locally for a fee, 2) Free tier for all over-the-air national and local broadcasts. This is why they are trying to maintain the NFL Network national broadcast in the second tier just like MNF and SNF. They want to maintain a low-cost option for fans (consumers).

 

[Patters]

OK, I'm starting to understand that you like to debate things about which you have no fundamental understanding or knowledge. You've developed a view because "it feels right" but have no understanding of the reality in the situation. You believe that the NFL owns the blame for the situation with the NFL Network and game broadcasts, and you're referring to it as a monopoly. Nothing could be further from the truth. On top of that, you choose to ignore the conflict of interest and potential antitrust behavior of the Cable Companies who both carry (broadcast) and produce programming that they favor by putting it in their basic package (no additional charge to the consumer) over programming that they don't produce and force into a premium package. Here is a quote from an FCC CATV fact sheet regarding this practice:

Now, if you are truly for the people (consumers) in this situation, you'll make an earnest attempt to understand that there is more than one villain in this case, and that the Cables are exhibiting predatory behavior in favoring their own programming over programs produced by another. Oh, conflict of interest you might conclude? Yes, it would be that. And the FCC used to regulate that practice more stringently. The NFL is attempting to provide its programming in two tiers: 1) Paid tier for the NFL Sunday ticket which allows viewers to see all games not broadcast locally for a fee, 2) Free tier for all over-the-air national and local broadcasts. This is why they are trying to maintain the NFL Network national broadcast in the second tier just like MNF and SNF. They want to maintain a low-cost option for fans (consumers).

I don't deny there's more than one villain. My point was never to defend the cable companies, and I don't know where you got that from. My point was simply that our Senators have the right to go after the NFL because the NFL has an anti-trust exemption. They could also go after the cable companies, but at least there's competition at that that level. What's screwing things up is that the NFL, because of it's protection, holds all the cards. In a normal environment, cable companies would say, "Okay, if company A doesn't want to deal with me, I'll go to company B." The NFL has the advantage here, but more broadly speaking there are certainly problems with the cable industry in general that should be dealt with.

And, while there may be different understandings of the story, from what I've read is the NFL wants it as part of the basic cable package, which, according to the NFL would cost the average subscriber $8/month. The problem is that a lot of people don't want the NFL. They have no interest in football. So, the cable companies are saying they want to include the service in their sports tier, so that only sports fans would pay.

 

[ClevTrev]

They could also go after the cable companies, but at least there's competition at that that level. What's screwing things up is that the NFL, because of it's protection, holds all the cards. In a normal environment, cable companies would say, "Okay, if company A doesn't want to deal with me, I'll go to company B." The NFL has the advantage here, but more broadly speaking there are certainly problems with the cable industry in general that should be dealt with.

Wrong, you've just expressed a complete distortion of the reality in this situation. If you understand the situation, the Cables due to their carriage of broadcast role can choose to feature their programs over outsiders, and they do this with gusto! The NFL certainly does not hold all the cards, for if they did, we'd not have this issue to discuss.

And, while there may be different understandings of the story, from what I've read is the NFL wants it as part of the basic cable package, which, according to the NFL would cost the average subscriber $8/month. The problem is that a lot of people don't want the NFL. They have no interest in football. So, the cable companies are saying they want to include the service in their sports tier, so that only sports fans would pay.

Patently incorrect. This is just not true, since it doesn't tell the whole story. Don't go halfway. The average subscriber would pay no more if it's included in the basic package. I'd venture to say that most subscribers currently receive programming (much of which is produced by the Cables) in which they have no interest. But this has been explained ad nauseum in this thread. If you don't want to read the posts carefully, then why respond?

Ok, this thread has run its course. I'm out. If you desire to explore the facts rather than repeat the pablum you've consumed, check out the issue on both sides, not just the one that appears to be getting the press at this time. What worries me is that you may be a registered voter, and you choose your candidates like this.

 

[Patters]

Patently incorrect. This is just not true, since it doesn't tell the whole story. Don't go halfway. The average subscriber would pay no more if it's included in the basic package. I'd venture to say that most subscribers currently receive programming (much of which is produced by the Cables) in which they have no interest. But this has been explained ad nauseum in this thread. If you don't want to read the posts carefully, then why respond?

Ok, this thread has run its course. I'm out. If you desire to explore the facts rather than repeat the pablum you've consumed, check out the issue on both sides, not just the one that appears to be getting the press at this time. What worries me is that you may be a registered voter, and you choose your candidates like this.

Well, if I have to choose to trust either MSM or someone who seems to have a weird loyalty towards the NFL as a corporate entity, I suppose I'll trust the MSM, since they can get into trouble if they lie. At any rate, I think you are not well informed. Here's one link that might help educate you:

http://news14.com/content/top_stories/590151/cable-vs--nfl-dispute-continues/Default.aspx

And, yes, this thread has run it's course, but I do hope you do some research rather than demonstrate your ignorance in such a rude way.

 

[ljuneau]

Well, if I have to choose to trust either MSM or someone who seems to have a weird loyalty towards the NFL as a corporate entity, I suppose I'll trust the MSM, since they can get into trouble if they lie. At any rate, I think you are not well informed. Here's one link that might help educate you:

http://news14.com/content/top_stories/590151/cable-vs--nfl-dispute-continues/Default.aspx

And, yes, this thread has run it's course, but I do hope you do some research rather than demonstrate your ignorance in such a rude way.

Actually, Clevtrev is correct. It would behoove you greatly to open your eyes a bit, break out of your paradigm world. When you wrote: "They could also go after the cable companies, but at least there's competition at that that level.", it became obvious that you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. Clevtrev is simply trying to educate you on realities, calling him ignorant reflects much brighter on yourself.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Hey, I've had PatriotsReign on my ignored list for a while. Why does he always post two posts at a time? Just curious.

If this guy has me on his ignore list, who does he think will answer this? How do you "post two posts at a time" anyway?...just curious.

I LOVE it when people find it necessary to announce they have someone on their ignore list like it's important to anyone but them. I never had to tell anyone oldskool138 is on my list of people to make fun of, so what's his deal?

someone please comment on this so olkskool has to read it!

 

[Patters]

Actually, Clevtrev is correct. It would behoove you greatly to open your eyes a bit, break out of your paradigm world. When you wrote: "They could also go after the cable companies, but at least there's competition at that that level.", it became obvious that you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. Clevtrev is simply trying to educate you on realities, calling him ignorant reflects much brighter on yourself.

There is vastly more competition in the cable tv industry than in the NFL. First of all, in many states there's been substantial deregulation; secondly, cable has competition from satellite and antenna-based reception, not to mention streaming internet and DVD rental. For instance, I get great reception on my hdtv with an hdtv antenna, and I use Netflix. I don't have cable. (The tone of my response to Clevtrev was a reaction to Clevtrev's condescending tone, and apparent misunderstanding of the facts.)