Senators threaten NFL - Yes!

[mgteich]

So, the NFL wants to charge twice what CNN charges and the government should step in and regulate the rates.

It is the NFL that is socialism. How is it socialism when the league tries to force rank and file Americans to pay for it's NFL network whether they watch football or not. And please, none of the "we also pay for CNN", etc, because the NFL wants to charge the cables double what CNN charges. They want to charge the cables a premium price but force they cables to keep their network in a non-premium oackage.

The NFL are the bad guys, and if the government should decide to get off its lazy butt and do something about it, that's good!

 

[DaBruinz]

It is the NFL that is socialism. How is it socialism when the league tries to force rank and file Americans to pay for it's NFL network whether they watch football or not. And please, none of the "we also pay for CNN", etc, because the NFL wants to charge the cables double what CNN charges. They want to charge the cables a premium price but force they cables to keep their network in a non-premium oackage.

The NFL are the bad guys, and if the government should decide to get off its lazy butt and do something about it, that's good!

1st off, the NFL is not forcing the rank and file Americans to PAY for its NFL Network whether they watch it or not. The only stipulation that the NFL has is that it NOT be a part of an UPPER TIER package and be lumped together with other PAY packages.

2nd, the Cable companies could, VERY EASILY, switch to an ALA CARTE format which would allow people to pay ONLY for what they wanted.

3rd, $.70 a subscriber is NOT a premium price. Not when you look at other channels that are in the non-premium packages. I believe that CNN is somewhere around $2-$3 a subscriber.

4th, the Government SHOULD have bigger things on its plate then getting involved in this dispute between the Cable companies and the NFL.

OH, one question. Did you complain when the Red Sox HOME games were moved to NESN and NESN was NOT part of the Cable Basic Package?

 

[ClevTrev]

It is the NFL that is socialism. How is it socialism when the league tries to force rank and file Americans to pay for it's NFL network whether they watch football or not. And please, none of the "we also pay for CNN", etc, because the NFL wants to charge the cables double what CNN charges. They want to charge the cables a premium price but force they cables to keep their network in a non-premium oackage.

The NFL are the bad guys, and if the government should decide to get off its lazy butt and do something about it, that's good!

Wow, that's an interesting take. Socialism, huh? Just be aware that large Cable providers have a monopoly of their own, and it's called owning their own content providers such as Comcast's Golf Channel or Time Warner's CNN. There are many more. Don't for a minute delude yourself into thinking that there's no incentive to charge customers for program content the Cables don't own. This is the real anti-trust issue if a consumer has no alternatives available. It's easy for the Cable to place the programming content they own outright into a basic, no charge tier. For a program owned by someone else, there's no incentive to do the same. Seems a bit of conflict to say the least.

So the Cables point the finger at the big bad NFL, and the elected officials who are swayed by the powerful Media & Cable lobbies fall into line. Don't for a minute think that companies like Comcast or Time Warner are the victims in this case. It's just the opposite. These are massive companies!!!

And the NFL consumer who simply wants to watch a game on Thursday night? Fuggetaboutem'!

Socialism? Riiiiight . . . .

 

[Patters]

That's just it. You only parroted someone else. You didn't actually make a point. That's why I asked you questions. As usual, though, you duck them. Keep up the good work.

I'm not sure who I parroted. I might have missed a few posts. At any rate, my point was directed at the double standard of some of the so-called free marketers here. They wanted the government to stay out of it and at the same time protect the NFL's government-created antitrust exemptions. That's pure hypocrisy.

Of course, I view sports in one of those special categories (like farming) that needs some government intervention. It's the nature of the beast. But, I believe the role of politicians is to answer to their constituents, many of whom are not particularly political, but think the NFL is getting away with murder by limiting the Giants game only to the NFL cable station, which they haven't made widely available because they refused to bow to market pressures, namely the demands of the cable providers. Thus, it appears that they are exploiting the exemption that government created for them. That's why some senators have stepped up to the plate (or should I say line of scrimmage ).

 

[unoriginal]

God bless America! With this type of attitude, our government will be controlling every aspect of our lives. What you are describing is, from a historical perspective, how Nazi Germany was born.

With all due respect to frankiesfly, this is the high point of this thread. I've spent 78 posts waiting for Nazis to enter a discussion on american football.

 

[ClevTrev]

So, the NFL wants to charge twice what CNN charges and the government should step in and regulate the rates.

Absolutely, patently incorrect. Read my post above. In addition, CNN is not a Cable provider, they are a content broadcast company, so this statement makes no sense.

 

[DaBruinz]

I'm not sure who I parroted. I might have missed a few posts. At any rate, my point was directed at the double standard of some of the so-called free marketers here. They wanted the government to stay out of it and at the same time protect the NFL's government-created antitrust exemptions. That's pure hypocrisy.

Of course, I view sports in one of those special categories (like farming) that needs some government intervention. It's the nature of the beast. But, I believe the role of politicians is to answer to their constituents, many of whom are not particularly political, but think the NFL is getting away with murder by limiting the Giants game only to the NFL cable station, which they haven't made widely available because they refused to bow to market pressures, namely the demands of the cable providers. Thus, it appears that they are exploiting the exemption that government created for them. That's why some senators have stepped up to the plate (or should I say line of scrimmage ).

Lets make an analogy.

Today, there are your local stores like Walmart, Target, Kohls. You also have your "wholesale" places like Sam's Club, BJ's and Costco. For the sake of the argument, lets say that Costco and Kohls are affiliated with Target and Kohls respectively.

I approach all 3 companies with Product "A". Product "A" is a decent product that will cost them $50 per piece and I want it to be sold at the Walmart, Target and Kohls of America and not in the Sam's Club, BJ's and Costco because they required a premium membership to shop there. All 3 companies tell me the same thing. That to carry my Product "A" in the Walmart, Target and Kohls, they are going to have to raise the prices on ALL their products by $.25 and they really can't do that. So, instead, they only want to sell my Product "A" in their Premium stores. So, now, my product will no longer be available hundreds of millions of people, but only tens of millions. Should I, as the producer of "Product A" be satisfied that my product will not go out to the expected hundreds of millions?

The answer is no. I shouldn't be happy. Because Walmart, Target and Kohls would be LYING to me. There is no reason to raise the prices on all their other products because I want them to add "Product A" to their product card.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Last time I looked only MLB had an antitrust exemption. All the other pro leagues only wished that they did.

Much Ado about Nothing.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Would you please stop trying to derail the thread? The issues you've mentioned, while legitimate, are NOT the issues being discussed. They are seperate issues and should be discussed in their own seperate threads since they are also very legitimate subjects. But they are INTERNAL subjects and have no bearing on the discussion at hand sinice they are issues between the NFL and NFLPA.

Derail this thread?

Give me a break.

 

[frankiesfly]

*ROFLMAO* WOW Frankie... You really told me. NOT. In fact, you just called EVERY SINGLE PATS FAN who happened to move outside of New England, yet still follows the team, that they are BANDWAGON FANS. You just called all the Pats fans who live over-seas losers and Bandwagoners as well. I'm sorry, but they are truer fans than you are. How friggin stupid are you? YOU are the disgusting one here.

Except for 2 seasons when I lived in Germany and had no access to the games, I've watched every Pats game that wasn't blacked out since 1982 . I can and DO question the intelligence of a piece of garbage like yourself who is the one who CLEARLY doens't know SH!T and is the type of fan that REAL FANS despise.

Frankie, you went out of your way to blatantly attack another fan and then you throw your little temper tantrum because you get called out on it. That shows the kind of person YOU are.

Truer fans. Lmao. O.K. The ones that wished they were truely part of something. What you scared. So you have to try to bring an army against me. You know what you are? You are one of those people us real fans call a "strictly internet fan" the ones who mean nothing. Nil. How many games have you been to this year? I missed one. By the way I think it was Charlotte and I who had words back earlier today. Do you know him? Maybe you should of minded your own business. You like to find any excuse to try and belittle someone. Why haven't I ever responded to anything else you have written? That's because I disagree highly with everything you write. You are always wrong and one of those people that I usualy wouldn't give the time of day to. The only people I ever really argued with here were fans of opposing teams, and you call yourself a real fan. Arguing with everyone, and finding any reason to disagree with people. I'll be the first to admit, that I don't know everything, a reason why I come here. There are some people here i really do enjoy, and learn from. You are the king at destroying threads. By the way for someone with the name Bruins in their screen name, I don't see you around the Bruins site too much. Is that because they aren't in first place like the Pats. I don't see you at the HF board or Boston.com or even at this Bruins board here. You say you're not a bandwagoner, and you're right you're not. A Fairweather is more lke it. I'll see you at the Bruins site when they win the Cup. You fairweather fan.

 

[Patters]

Lets make an analogy.

Today, there are your local stores like Walmart, Target, Kohls. You also have your "wholesale" places like Sam's Club, BJ's and Costco. For the sake of the argument, lets say that Costco and Kohls are affiliated with Target and Kohls respectively.

I approach all 3 companies with Product "A". Product "A" is a decent product that will cost them $50 per piece and I want it to be sold at the Walmart, Target and Kohls of America and not in the Sam's Club, BJ's and Costco because they required a premium membership to shop there. All 3 companies tell me the same thing. That to carry my Product "A" in the Walmart, Target and Kohls, they are going to have to raise the prices on ALL their products by $.25 and they really can't do that. So, instead, they only want to sell my Product "A" in their Premium stores. So, now, my product will no longer be available hundreds of millions of people, but only tens of millions. Should I, as the producer of "Product A" be satisfied that my product will not go out to the expected hundreds of millions?

The answer is no. I shouldn't be happy. Because Walmart, Target and Kohls would be LYING to me. There is no reason to raise the prices on all their other products because I want them to add "Product A" to their product card.

But, that's the free market at work. True, you shouldn't be happy, but if you want them to sell your product, you have to cooperate. What makes the NFL situation different is that they want a degree of government anti-trust protection and, as a result, because the government represents the people, the government is obligated to represent not only the NFL but the people as well. The NFL could always ask the government to rescind the protection.

 

[ClevTrev]

Last time I looked only MLB had an antitrust exemption. All the other pro leagues only wished that they did. Much Ado about Nothing.

Think again. The NFL has an antitrust exemption related to broadcasting. While baseball has a broad antitrust exemption, the NFL falls under the following exemption:

"Sports other than baseball have only a limited exemption from antitrust laws, one that applies specifically to broadcasting. The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 allowed teams to pool their national broadcast rights to sell to networks."

So there is an ado. However, the Cables continue to act as the poor victim in this case, while the consumers are getting screwed.

 

[DaBruinz]

But, that's the free market at work. True, you shouldn't be happy, but if you want them to sell your product, you have to cooperate. What makes the NFL situation different is that they want a degree of government anti-trust protection and, as a result, because the government represents the people, the government is obligated to represent not only the NFL but the people as well. The NFL could always ask the government to rescind the protection.

Please show me which Anti-trust exemptions/protections/allowances the NFL is using in an attempt to bully the Cable companies. The thing I see is that the NFL is using their right as a producer of a product to demand where their product be merchandised. But that is the right of ANY producer.

 

[Patters]

Please show me which Anti-trust exemptions/protections/allowances the NFL is using in an attempt to bully the Cable companies. The thing I see is that the NFL is using their right as a producer of a product to demand where their product be merchandised. But that is the right of ANY producer.

They are in such a strong position because of their exemption from anti-trust laws. (If it wasn't for those laws, football might not be as good, but there would be more competition and the NFL might be forced to lower its prices.) All I'm saying is that the government can't only protect the NFL; it has to protect the interests of it's citizens as well. That's the price a business pays when it enters into an unholy alliance with the government.

 

[ClevTrev]

They are in such a strong position because of their exemption from anti-trust laws. (If it wasn't for those laws, football might not be as good, but there would be more competition and the NFL might be forced to lower its prices.) All I'm saying is that the government can't only protect the NFL; it has to protect the interests of it's citizens as well. That's the price a business pays when it enters into an unholy alliance with the government.

You are missing the point entirely. While the NFL is granted a limited antitrust exemption for controlling their broadcast rights as sold to networks, the real antitrust issue is with the Cable Companies who own their programming content as well. This is why the FCC is getting involved in this along with a variety of representatives taking sides. These large Cable Companies have no incentive in providing a national NFL broadcast in their basic channel tier alongside the programs they produce themselves. This is the real issue here. As a result, they're trying to make more money on the NFL Network broadcasts they don't own or produce by charging the consumers for a premium program. The NFL is attempting to get this programming for the cable consumers at no additional charge. Full stop.

 

[Patters]

You are missing the point entirely. While the NFL is granted a limited antitrust exemption for controlling their broadcast rights as sold to networks, the real antitrust issue is with the Cable Companies who own their programming content as well. This is why the FCC is getting involved in this along with a variety of representatives taking sides. These large Cable Companies have no incentive in providing a national NFL broadcast in their basic channel tier alongside the programs they produce themselves. This is the real issue here. As a result, they're trying to make more money on the NFL Network broadcasts they don't own or produce by charging the consumers for a premium program. The NFL is attempting to get this programming for the cable consumers at no additional charge. Full stop.

I think it's far more complicated than that. Here's one of the things I read on teh subject that I think outlines the issues fairly well:

http://thesportslawprofessor.blogspot.com/2007/11/solution-to-nfl-network-problem.html

 

[sdaniels7114]

I can see why the NFL doesn't want to be lumped in with the Tennis, Golf and Badmitten channels. They have a good product that people like to watch. Why should they be forced to carry (in a figurative sense) these channels? To bring them revenue? I think the answer lies in who owns the Tennis, Golf and Badmitten channels.

 

[ClevTrev]

I think it's far more complicated than that. Here's one of the things I read on teh subject that I think outlines the issues fairly well:

http://thesportslawprofessor.blogspot.com/2007/11/solution-to-nfl-network-problem.html

It's really not more complicated than that. The attorney who is blogging (now, you don't really believe everything you read, do you?) is clearly painting the NFL as the bad guy who he claims is stretching the meaning of the 1961 SBA. What he is ignoring, as are many who have jumped on this issue, is that the Cable Companies are also content producers and broadcast their own programs, CNN, the Golf Channel, and many others. The NFL is attempting to get the NFL Network games broadcasts aired to all cable consumers at no additional charge, just like an over-the-air network broadcast. What you and the blogger in question either conveniently overlook or aren't aware of is that the Cables have a conflict when they choose their own program content over others in the basic tier. The issue really is simple. The solution may become very contentious unless the Cables are held up to the same antitrust expectations for their own program content. The spotlight needs to shine on them as well. Is the NFL without responsibility in this case? No. But both parties need to be held accountable to the law and the consumers' rights in this case.

 

[pheenix11]

The real villains in this whole fiasco are he greedy cable companies. They NFL wants to charge them like $.70 for the NFL Network and the Cable Companies want to turn around and put it in a special sports tier with crap like the pocket pool channel and charge $5-$10. The NFL thinks that is BS and that it should be on the basic tier.

The Cable Companies will add all kinds of CRAP like 16 shopping channels and oxygen onto the basic tier because they get a cut from the shopping and because Oxygen is cheap because no one watches it. But they use it to inflate their channel numbers.

Down here in Central Florida locals cannot watch most of the Orlando Magic games on TV because the Cable Company does not carry Fox Sports FL. And its for the same reason they don't carry the NFL Network, they don't want to pay the fees. Rather than paying for content that hundreds of millions of people watch they would rather get CRAP content for next to nothing and stick it up your ass.

Dabruinz was right about the Al La Carte, they can do this but they don't because then the truth would come out that no one watches or wants 90% of the CRAP channels that they get for cheap fees.

I would have switched to Directv a long time ago but they "supposedly" require a landline and speaking of MA Bell, we ditched that crap years ago.

 

[BelichickFan]

I would have switched to Directv a long time ago but they "supposedly" require a landline and speaking of MA Bell, we ditched that crap years ago.

Switch, you don't need it - unless you do for PPV, I don't get that. But for normal stuff you don't need the landline.