Netflix will air NFL's Christmas games for the next three seasons

[Scotty]

Just for interest is multiple providers the same for other US sports eg Baseball / Basketball /Hockey or is it just the NFL ?

 

[mike_usagisan]

Just for interest is multiple providers the same for other US sports eg Baseball / Basketball /Hockey or is it just the NFL ?

It's the same for basketball. I don't know about hockey or baseball.

 

[mgteich]

. If the NFL decides to pull the same **** like they did with the KC / Miami Playoff game last year with a Patriots game then I'll pro
bably sign up for one month and cancel.

or sign up for a one week free trial

 

[TheRainMaker]

Who else gets exhausted just trying to find something to watch between all these damn apps?

 

[mgteich]

Who else gets exhausted just trying to find something to watch between all these damn apps?

how is this different from having 200+ channels on Comcast? Getting exhausted because I have too many reasonable choices is fine with me.

If you need there are lots of services online that rate the various choices available and help you choose; also, there is TV guide.

What often happens to me is that I catch up and exhaust one streaming channel then not watch it for a couple of months. Of course, I could watch and cancel, risnse an repeat, but I tend not to do that.

 

[Huckleberry1]

This is getting out of hand.

It’s because Congress has allowed them to ignore the agreement they initially made to avoid antitrust laws for decades. The NFL was facing antitrust lawsuits for being a monopoly back in the 60’s and 70’s, and the Congress made a deal with them that they would give them an exemption in return for airing all games on open airwaves of the 3 major networks, with a workaround for local blackouts so ticket sales wouldn’t be impacted. The NFL has been ignoring these requirements for years, and Congress ( both Party’s) hasn’t had the balls to call them on it. Pretty soon the Super Bowl will be on a streaming platform. I don’t think they will ever go pay per view because their advertising $$$ is greater than the one time buys would get.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Who else gets exhausted just trying to find something to watch between all these damn apps?

I don’t. I think streaming has made the entire industry far more competitive, and the quality of the products have improved immensely over the garbage the 3 networks put out. Pretty much every great series I have watched has been a product of a streaming network. We have seen so many more great actors, directors, and performances than we ever did with the milquetoast **** the big 3 shoveled at us. Yes, it’s more expensive, but I’ll take the expense for the variety of options, in movies, series, sports, and other products available now. I can watch pretty much every major soccer league and tournament there is now, and none of that was available in the 80’s and 90’s.

 

[mgteich]

It’s because Congress has allowed them to ignore the agreement they initially made to avoid antitrust laws for decades. The NFL was facing antitrust lawsuits for being a monopoly back in the 60’s and 70’s, and the Congress made a deal with them that they would give them an exemption in return for airing all games on open airwaves of the 3 major networks, with a workaround for local blackouts so ticket sales wouldn’t be impacted. The NFL has been ignoring these requirements for years, and Congress ( both Party’s) hasn’t had the balls to call them on it. Pretty soon the Super Bowl will be on a streaming platform. I don’t think they will ever go pay per view because their advertising $$$ is greater than the one time buys would get.

And the players should get half the money so that the 15% can use their rabbit ears and watch on open airqys.

Congress does a lot to serve the very few. In this case, they continue to support the 85% of fans who watch on cable, satellite and streaming.
They continue to allow a system that allows the players to negotiate higher and higher compensation, as the owners also get more rich negotiating with the various providers.

You want all the games to be on three networks for free. I presume that this would include a credit from your cable company. This isn't happening and shouldn't be happening.
========
There is a "solution". You could get Congress to put a free access tax on the NFL and give a tax credit all those who do not have cable or streaming. Or just give the tax credit.

 

[XLIX]

And the players should get half the money so that the 15% can use their rabbit ears and watch on open airqys.

Congress does a lot to serve the very few. In this case, they continue to support the 85% of fans who watch on cable, satellite and streaming.
They continue to allow a system that allows the players to negotiate higher and higher compensation, as the owners also get more rich negotiating with the various providers.

You want all the games to be on three networks for free. I presume that this would include a credit from your cable company. This isn't happening and shouldn't be happening.
========
There is a "solution". You could get Congress to put a free access tax on the NFL and give a tax credit all those who do not have cable or streaming. Or just give the tax credit.

Congress needs to completely overhaul the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. We are all operating under rules drafted during the Kennedy administration when there were 3 TV stations and no cable, satellite or streaming.

 

[mgteich]

Congress needs to completely overhaul the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. We are all operating under rules drafted during the Kennedy administration when there were 3 TV stations and no cable, satellite or streaming.

So, without showing any need whatsoever, you just want to change the law.

I suggest that Congress doesn't react well to such wastes of time. In any case, 60 senators aren't approving any changes to this law.

 

[XLIX]

So, without showing any need whatsoever, you just want to change the law.

um, I showed the need for the change when I established it was drafted over 60 years ago when "broadcasting" meant 3 TV stations. It was a radically different landscape than it is today. It is a "broadcasting" piece of legislation that doesn't take into account cable, satellite or streaming. Does that really make sense to you?

I suggest that Congress doesn't react well to such wastes of time.

You cannot possibly be serious. The SBA is one of the most significant, most important pieces of broadcasting legislation in our nation's history. Among other things, it governs how each and every single one of us watch football every fall. But, as I noted several times already, it is over 6 decades old.

On what planet is updating an important, but 60 years old, piece of legislation to account for our modern technology a waste of time? That sort of thing is exactly what government should be doing.

 

[mgteich]

um, I showed the need for the change when I established it was drafted over 60 years ago when "broadcasting" meant 3 TV stations. It was a radically different landscape than it is today. It is a "broadcasting" piece of legislation that doesn't take into account cable, satellite or streaming. Does that really make sense to you?

You cannot possibly be serious. The SBA is one of the most significant, most important pieces of broadcasting legislation in our nation's history. Among other things, it governs how each and every single one of us watch football every fall. But, as I noted several times already, it is over 6 decades old.

On what planet is updating an important, but 60 years old, piece of legislation to account for our modern technology a waste of time? That sort of thing is exactly what government should be doing.

Look, we don't change laws because they are outdated. There are hundreds and thousands of such outdated legislation.

As with any change in the law, it takes a LOT for there to be a law passed in Congress. And, yes I am serious. Unless there is overwhelming support for a particular piece of legislation, nothing will or should happen.
==================
Perhaps I should be more clear. Please present a copy of a draft proposal for change and polls showing that 60% of Americans support that proposal (or at least the need for some proposal) and then perhaps we can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of passing a new law.
Congress doesn't make laws JUST BECAUSE.

 

[Huckleberry1]

And the players should get half the money so that the 15% can use their rabbit ears and watch on open airqys.

Congress does a lot to serve the very few. In this case, they continue to support the 85% of fans who watch on cable, satellite and streaming.
They continue to allow a system that allows the players to negotiate higher and higher compensation, as the owners also get more rich negotiating with the various providers.

You want all the games to be on three networks for free. I presume that this would include a credit from your cable company. This isn't happening and shouldn't be happening.
========
There is a "solution". You could get Congress to put a free access tax on the NFL and give a tax credit all those who do not have cable or streaming. Or just give the tax credit.

I already said that I have no problem with streaming the games, but that doesn’t in any way change the fact that the NFL made a deal to avoid antitrust legislation being used against them. They are completely ignoring that agreement, and they aren’t being held to it.

 

[rkarp1]

I think this is a false flag put out by the NFL to try and squeeze more money from Netflix.

Amazon already has 17 TNF games. Hardcore NFL fans are already subscribed to Prime for those. Amazon gains very little from buying the Christmas Day package. It isn't like people are going to subscribe to Prime because of the Christmas games; they are already subscribed. And all the Christmas shopping is over so they get no retail boost.

cyber week

 

[XLIX]

Look, we don't change laws because they are outdated.

Of course we do. What country do you live in because I am in the United States of America where laws get updated and changed all the time.

The Federal Communciations Act of 1934 has been updated 4 times, including a major update in the mid-80s when cable TV became commonplace and was then overhauled in the 90’s as the internet started to take off.

If you had your way, we’d all still be gathered ‘round the fireplace listening to radio.

Perhaps I should be more clear. Please present a copy of a draft proposal for change and polls showing that 60% of Americans support that proposal (or at least the need for some proposal) and then perhaps we can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of passing a new law.
Congress doesn't make laws JUST BECAUSE.

WTF is wrong with you? Serious question….. what is the malfunction going on in you head that causes you to act this way?

I gave an opinion. I said: “Congress needs to completely overhaul the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.” Now, all of a sudden, because of my opinion I have to present polling data and congressional draft proposals just to “discuss the advantages and disadvantages of passing a new law.”

Gimme a break. I’ll discuss whatever on-topic subject I want and if you don’t like it, too bad.

 

[XLIX]

.................aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand perfectly on queue, Florio gives us an article about the SBA'61, its shortcomings, why it should be updated, and the very important - but unresolved - question of whether "streaming" constitutes "broadcasting".

But be warned!! Florio didn't conduct any focus groups, opinion polls, or present congressional draft legislation in his article so, to some in here, that means the issue cannot be discussed.

Proliferation of streaming nudges NFL toward potential antitrust showdown

It's a point we made last March.

www.nbcsports.com

 

[mgteich]

Of course we do. What country do you live in because I am in the United States of America where laws get updated and changed all the time.

The Federal Communciations Act of 1934 has been updated 4 times, including a major update in the mid-80s when cable TV became commonplace and was then overhauled in the 90’s as the internet started to take off.

If you had your way, we’d all still be gathered ‘round the fireplace listening to radio.

WTF is wrong with you? Serious question….. what is the malfunction going on in you head that causes you to act this way?

I gave an opinion. I said: “Congress needs to completely overhaul the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.” Now, all of a sudden, because of my opinion I have to present polling data and congressional draft proposals just to “discuss the advantages and disadvantages of passing a new law.”

Gimme a break. I’ll discuss whatever on-topic subject I want and if you don’t like it, too bad.

Fine

You don’t have to have any reasons other than personal wishes to want new laws to be passed

I apogize for asking for logicneed or feasibility,

 

[ahmed]

Yeah- streaming prices are getting crazy.

I pay $120 CAD a year for DAZN that gives me all NFL games except SB. It also gives me Champions league soccer (50% off with the credit card I have).

I pay $20 CAD a month I think for Fubo purely to watch Premiere League for Liverpool games. I will cancel it after next week until Aug

I pay $120 a year for CRAVE (Canada's version of HBO Max) which is 50% with same credit card promo.

I think I pay 20+ CAD a month for Netflix and I think $140 CAD a year for Prime.

I also paid $40 CAD a year for Disney+ due to same credit card promo which saved me $120.

Next year I plan to cut down. Pay for DAZN, FUBO and Netflix. Get rid of the others and buy them occasionally if I feel like it.

I will always keep Prime though as the TV part is purely extra which I almost never use. Amazon Prime is probably 40% of my shopping so worth the money (Costco another 40%).