Senators threaten NFL - Yes!

[Truck]

how about this for a thought....
NBA/NHL teams play 5 times as many games as NFL teams.
MLB teams play 10 times as many games as NFL teams.

Yet I'm able to, for free over the air, watch more NFL games than I am able to watch NBA, NHL, and MLB games combined locally.

Now, based on that; who is really making it tough for the consumer.

Not all of us have or want to spend $1000 a year on cable/satellite. Atleast the NFL lets us enjoy our home market games for free

 

[unoriginal]

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.

One of the things you do need for DirecTV - and any other satelite based service - is a clear view of the entire southern sky, below 33 degrees, I believe.

Many neighborhoods do not have that option due to aerial obstructions, the most important of which are tall trees. If you are in a zoning district that doesn't permit 60 foot tall towers to clear such obstruction, you really are SOL.

I offer this as a tip to people reading this thread thinking about ditching cable, and as an apology for others, such as myself, who are stuck paying $70 for basic cable because Comcast knows that there are lots of trees in my neighborhood, and they own all the residential cable.

 

[sdaniels7114]

The only good part of Congress stepping up is the attention. The one universal thing that big business and government all have in common is an abject willingness to screw the average joe if Joe isn't paying attention. If all these dealings were done in secret somehow the NFL and Cable people would get together and the only thing you could be sure of about the deal they'd reach is that they'd find a way to clean even more money out of our collective wallets and the government would pop in for its share ala Tony Soprano. All the publicity keeps things somewhat more honest.

 

[oldskool138]

Damn NHL Canadian hockey team! Who do they think they are threating the NFL? I mean, really!

 

[Patters]

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.

Again, I think it's far more complicated. If the NFL wanted to resolve the issue, they would stream the games on the internet. That would give them more leverage with the cable companies. Each side is trying to maximize its profits.

 

[Gopats!!!]

The senators are a bunch of idiots (surprise!)

I noticed they went after the NLF and not the cable companies. I'm sure the cable companies losing business because they refuse to show the NFLN on the basic tier went crying to the senators.

Funny how the senators aren't worried about ESPN. Not everyone can see that.

The government always screws things up.

 

[upstater1]

Trust me that is the last you will ever hear
of the US Govt. threaten to take away
the NFL's antitrust exemption..

Don't get your hopes up!!

I don't think so. This has happened in the past a lot, and the NFL always meets them halfway. If it comes to hearings...

 

[ClevTrev]

Again, I think it's far more complicated. If the NFL wanted to resolve the issue, they would stream the games on the internet. That would give them more leverage with the cable companies. Each side is trying to maximize its profits.

Ah, not only do you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the broadcast and antitrust laws, but you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright laws. Stream the games on the internet? That assumes all those potential Internet viewers have broadband access. You're living in a dream world. You're out of your league.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Nothing like talking out your arse. I never said anything of the sort. And you couldn't scare a fly, nevermind me.

How many games have you been to this year?
I missed one.

The number of games you have or haven't been to has NO bearing on the sign of a fan. And your a complete friggin idiot for even suggesting it does. I happen to have a job in DALLAS. I've live here for 18 months. But, as I've said, I've followed the Pats since 1982.

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.

HELLO. You made it the business of EVERY FAN who lives outside of New England with your attacks on Charlotte and claiming he wasn't a Pats fans because, GOD FORBID, he didn't live in New England.

You like to find any excuse to try and belittle someone.

WRONG. Nothing like continuing to talk out your arse.

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.

*ROFLMAO* You don't respond because most of the conversations are so far beyond the level of your comprehension that you would sound like a 1st grader in a College Masters Degree program.

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.

You can have your opinion of me. I don't care. Its as worthless as you are. YOU are the one who started attacking others in this thread. YOU are the one who destroyed it. If you have an issue with getting dealt your own medicine, STFU and look in the mirror next time.

OH, I don't disagree with everyone nor do I argue ab out every little thing. If you had even a 10th of the intelligence you claim, you wouldn't talk out your arse with absurd exaggerations.

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.

OH, so, because I continue to boycott the NHL over the attitude the players took towards the fans during the strike, I'm a fairweather fan? Man, you love just making things up. You can sit there and call me all the names you want, but it won't change the fact that you don't have a damn clue as to what you are talking about. And it won't change the fact that YOU attacked, unprovoked, ALL Patriots Fans who reside outside New England.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Patters, I asked you for SPECIFIC instances as to which exemptions the NFL is using against the Cable companies. Unfortunately, you failed to do so.

Also, I think you need to be reminded that 2 "Football leagues" attempted to compete against the NFL in the last 25 years. They failed.

 

[BelichickFan]

If anything, Senators should step in and resolve the NFL Sunday Ticket debacle. Forcing people to get DirecTV if they want the ticket is terrible. I live in a building that does not allow me to have a dish so I am ***** out of luck.

I have sympathy for those who can't get Sunday Ticket but this is not an issue for governments. We all have choices. You can deal with it or move to a different building. Life is full of choices that have good and bad aspects to them; everyone needs to grow up, make those choices and get on with their lives.

 

[BadMoFo]

Good news for me since I am so close to NY, I am getting the Giants/Pats game on regular TV. Yeah, yeah!

 

[DaBruinz]

If anything, Senators should step in and resolve the NFL Sunday Ticket debacle. Forcing people to get DirecTV if they want the ticket is terrible. I live in a building that does not allow me to have a dish so I am ***** out of luck.

You aren't being forced to get DirecTV. You can go to any bar to watch the games.

As for buildings not allowing you to put up a dish, I am pretty sure that you can fight that and places have to allow you to put them up. They may charge you a deposit, but that still isn't nearly as bad as not being able to get it.

Also, DirecTV pays 700 million a year for the exclusive broadcasting rights. That is NOT a debacle. That is good business on the part of the NFL.

 

[BelichickFan]

Good news for me since I am so close to NY, I am getting the Giants/Pats game on regular TV. Yeah, yeah!

Which is a reminder how the line :

"expressed concern that many fans in their home states will not be able to see games on the channel"

is so disingenuous. While it is probably factually correct, many states have split fan constituency so those fans in "their home state" often aren't fans of the referenced teams if they aren't getting the game on local TV anyway.

 

[Patters]

Ah, not only do you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the broadcast and antitrust laws, but you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright laws. Stream the games on the internet? That assumes all those potential Internet viewers have broadband access. You're living in a dream world. You're out of your league.

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.

Patters, I asked you for SPECIFIC instances as to which exemptions the NFL is using against the Cable companies. Unfortunately, you failed to do so.

I didn't realize that you didn't understand something so basic to this discussion, but the whole issue is about the exemption that allows the NFL to control all broadcasting rights on behalf of all the teams. (In other words, cable companies can't pursue their own contracts with individual teams.)

Also, I think you need to be reminded that 2 "Football leagues" attempted to compete against the NFL in the last 25 years. They failed.

As I thought you knew, I'm not arguing against the anti-trust exemption. My initial point was to show the double standard about those who said that the government should stay out (that the Senators have no right to badger the NFL) while at the same time arguing that the government-created anti-trust exemption should stay in place.

 

[SpiderFox53]

I didn't realize that you didn't understand something so basic to this discussion, but the whole issue is about the exemption that allows the NFL to control all broadcasting rights on behalf of all the teams. (In other words, cable companies can't pursue their own contracts with individual teams.)

If the anti-trust exemption wasn't in place, the individual teams would not be negotiating with the cable companies, they would be negotiating with the broadcast companies, who in turn would negotiate with the cable companies.

While I don't even pretend to understand the full ramifications of what would happen if this exemption was taken away, I do know it wouldn't help us (the fans) in the least.

 

[Patters]

If the anti-trust exemption wasn't in place, the individual teams would not be negotiating with the cable companies, they would be negotiating with the broadcast companies, who in turn would negotiate with the cable companies.

I didn't know that, but it makes sense.

While I don't even pretend to understand the full ramifications of what would happen if this exemption was taken away, I do know it wouldn't help us (the fans) in the least.

It might help in terms of seeing games, since every NFL club would have in its interest the showing of their games. That said, it might hurt since right now the NFL is a high-quality monopoly.

 

[festy1986]

Get this done in time for the Pats/Giants game, going for the perfect season and Maine is being blacked out from it? This is horse ****.

Still a chance, if the game is an actual shot at 16-0 that the NFL gets enough media attention that somehow atleast the usual people who get the games, end up with them.

 

[PatriotsReign]

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.

Although I work for a large private company which is owned by a huge private Japanese corporation, I am a HUGE anti-big business interest guy. On top of all this, I'm employed as an economist or more specifically, a market analyst as well. I HATE big oil with a passion and the relationship big business in general has been allowed to develop with our voted officials in our government.

I truly believe we are in danger of the line between government and business disappearing completely...basically, world economics/business will run our governments. I could write a complete dissertation on this topic, but obviously not here!

All this being said, I LOVE MY NFL!!! And I don't want it broken up....EVER! However, I would support the government stepping in to rid the NFL of steroid abuse/addiction as steroid users are in fact drug addicts.

Wow, that was a mouthful!

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

Although I work for a large private company which is owned by a huge private Japanese corporation, I am a HUGE anti-big business interest guy. On top of all this, I'm employed as an economist or more specifically, a market analyst as well. I HATE big oil with a passion and the relationship big business in general has been allowed to develop with our voted officials in our government.

I truly believe we are in danger of the line between government and business disappearing completely...basically, world economics/business will run our governments. I could write a complete dissertation on this topic, but obviously not here!

All this being said, I LOVE MY NFL!!! And I don't want it broken up....EVER! However, I would support the government stepping in to rid the NFL of steroid abuse/addiction as steroid users are in fact drug addicts.

Wow, that was a mouthful!

What could the Government do that the NFL couldn't do themselves? The NFL could make it a lifetime ban if a player tested positive for steroids. I think that would have a profound effect, don't you? Truth be told, the NFL likes it's 330 pound lineman and 270 pound LB's and so do the fans that's why the testing technology is always a little behind. I was at a party a few years ago and I was speaking with Carolina Panthers offensive guard about this very subject and he indicated that the testing wasn't keeping pace with the new roid technology and you can't test for HGH.