WCVB in court today over simulcast

[Pujo]

Because as an American I have a right to view a game that is a product of the NFL because I am a consumer/customer of the NFL. I buy NFL tickets and merchandise. Therefore myself and every other consumer/customer of the NFL should be able to watch the product in which we invest our time and money.

Corporate America shouldn't be allowed to restrict my rights of viewership for their personal profit. When did the consumer/customer's rights get thrown out the window in favor of corporate financial gain?

How do you figure? Boxing matches are on PPV, do I have a "right" to watch them for free?

Keep in mind that you have the "right" to NFL Network, you simply have to get Direct TV, and pay for it. There's no right to a free lunch in America. Life, liberty, the persuit of happyness, and football on broadcast TV? You must be looking at a different constitution.

On the bigger point, I completely agree with Mainefan.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Because as an American I have a right to view a game that is a product of the NFL because I am a consumer/customer of the NFL. I buy NFL tickets and merchandise. Therefore myself and every other consumer/customer of the NFL should be able to watch the product in which we invest our time and money.

Corporate America shouldn't be allowed to restrict my rights of viewership for their personal profit. When did the consumer/customer's rights get thrown out the window in favor of corporate financial gain?

You cannot possibly be serious.

 

[mgteich]

It is late in the year, but we have another nominee for the most ignorant post of the year. Well, I go too far. Promoting socialism isn't necessarily ignorant. It may be simply stupid.

Perhaps we should go back to 3 channels per city, with much more regulation.
Or we could accept the fact that corporations, including the NFL, have spent billions to develop what we have. The NFl should chearg whatever they wish. My objection is when they put restrictions on the products of others; for example, requiring the channel be in this tier or that. Comcast has made a decision to charge more to those who watch sports. I am absolutely fine with that. Even if I weren't, I wouldn't eexpect the governement to secure my football watching for free. And yes, secretly I would like to see pressure on the NFL to remove the exclusivity given to DirectTV, especially in areas where DirectTV is not available. Some have too many trees for satellite.

We have our HD large screen with hundreds of channels precisely because of the profit making of the corporations. Specifically, the NFL has many more to thank for its success, including Congress and Pete Rozelle, who had a working relationship which has given us the greatest sport on earth. Goodell much learn to act as a leader in improving that product, even while he tries to clean up the drugs that are rampant.

Because as an American I have a right to view a game that is a product of the NFL because I am a consumer/customer of the NFL. I buy NFL tickets and merchandise. Therefore myself and every other consumer/customer of the NFL should be able to watch the product in which we invest our time and money.

Corporate America shouldn't be allowed to restrict my rights of viewership for their personal profit. When did the consumer/customer's rights get thrown out the window in favor of corporate financial gain?

 

[Bigdogx]

That's what government is all about -- creating handouts for idiots and screwing the people who have their **** together.

For example, the housing bailout. If you're dumb enough to take a mortgage you can't afford, you should have to live with the consequences when the bank forecloses. Instead, thanks to the government, all the smart people who managed their finances correctly are now paying extra tax to subsidize some *******'s McMansion.

What does people who are to stupid to know their financial limits and sign a contract they will never be able to honor vs. people who cant get a station because of big cooperation greed have to do with each other? 30 % of cable systems carry this channel, the common fan won with this one and dont see why anyone should be pissing and moaning about it, sorry im not ever going to feel sorry for a bunch of rich suits who wont get it their way!

 

[SpiderFox53]

It is late in the year, but we have another nominee for the most ignorant post of the year. Well, I go too far. Promoting socialism isn't necessarily ignorant. It may be simply stupid.

Perhaps we should go back to 3 channels per city, with much more regulation.
Or we could accept the fact that corporations, including the NFL, have spent billions to develop what we have. The NFl should chearg whatever they wish. My objection is when they put restrictions on the products of others; for example, requiring the channel be in this tier or that. Comcast has made a decision to charge more to those who watch sports. I am absolutely fine with that. Even if I weren't, I wouldn't eexpect the governement to secure my football watching for free. And yes, secretly I would like to see pressure on the NFL to remove the exclusivity given to DirectTV, especially in areas where DirectTV is not available. Some have too many trees for satellite.

We have our HD large screen with hundreds of channels precisely because of the profit making of the corporations. Specifically, the NFL has many more to thank for its success, including Congress and Pete Rozelle, who had a working relationship which has given us the greatest sport on earth. Goodell much learn to act as a leader in improving that product, even while he tries to clean up the drugs that are rampant.

The only issue I have with what you wrote is that you have it backwards. The "PRODUCT" belongs to the NFL and the cable companies are attempting to put restrictions on that product.

The other part I put in bold is the same issue as NFLN. The NFL is perfectly willing to license Sunday NFL ticket to the Cable companies, but said companies are unwilling to comply with how the NFL wants it done. Hence they keep renewing the exclusivity contract with directv. Canada and Mexico don't have this problem as the ticket is available over cable.

I'm NOT saying it think the NFL is right or that the Cable companies are right. I just wish they could get it straightened out. I would much rather get my Pats through Verizon fios but that's not an option.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Because as an American I have a right to view a game that is a product of the NFL because I am a consumer/customer of the NFL. I buy NFL tickets and merchandise. Therefore myself and every other consumer/customer of the NFL should be able to watch the product in which we invest our time and money.

Corporate America shouldn't be allowed to restrict my rights of viewership for their personal profit. When did the consumer/customer's rights get thrown out the window in favor of corporate financial gain?

You have no rights to view a football game. Check the Constitution and you will find no mention of football games. "Corporate America" has a right to sell their products to anyone they seem fit or restrict the sale of the product. We as consumers have a right to complain.And if "Corporate America" thinks it's bad for business that we are complaining, then they might change their policies.

Channel 5 should have exclusive rights to the Boston area. They made a deal with the NFL and signed the contract. Unless there was a clause in the contract giving the NFL the option to air it over other Boston stations then Channel 5 is exclusive.

I'm happy as hell that I'll be able to see the game in my own home now. But I had no "right" to see it.

 

[PantsB]

Politics had nothing to do with this. The NFLN decided to spread its word. Wait for all the "call your cable company and demand the NFL Network" commercials going out on CBS/NBC.

So true!
And here's some quick pics from the Kerry front! Hey, my name on the football!!!

As opposed to ...

Never got how people decided the guy who was on three Yale athletics teams (hockey, soccer and lax) and was a decorated Vietnam war veteran was perceived as less macho than a Yale cheerleader who dodged the draft.

 

[shmessy]

In this situation:

I side with the NFL against Comcast.

I side with WCVB against the NFL. (BTW, a pretty black and white situation. I'm surprised the NFL hasn't $ettled it quickly).

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

I believe not. Well run business do not sign contracts that let the other party opt out for nebulous 'unforseen conditions'. Force Majure, yes, but WTF, no.

Absolutely, you beat me to it. Force majure lets parties out of their agreed upon contractual obligations for unavoidable catastrophes that prevent the parties from fulfilling their obligations...What was the catastrophe that forced the NFL to simulcast the game on free TV diluting the product? Methinks the lawyers will be arguing about this long after SB42 is done...

 

[mgteich]

I freely admit that I do not know the details of the negotiations regarding Direct Ticket and why DirectTV is able to meet the demands of the NFL, and others are not.

Let us turn to NFLN. It is my understanding that, as a condition of purchase by some cable compaies, that the cable company must put the channel in a particular product offering, each of which includes products purchased from many other entitties. Please correct me if I am incorrect with regard to the facts. However, it seems that the NFL should be able to charge any cable company whatever it wishes, but the NFL should not be able for the companies to mask the cost by forcing them to include the channel with Standard Service.

The only issue I have with what you wrote is that you have it backwards. The "PRODUCT" belongs to the NFL and the cable companies are attempting to put restrictions on that product.

The other part I put in bold is the same issue as NFLN. The NFL is perfectly willing to license Sunday NFL ticket to the Cable companies, but said companies are unwilling to comply with how the NFL wants it done. Hence they keep renewing the exclusivity contract with directv. Canada and Mexico don't have this problem as the ticket is available over cable.

I'm NOT saying it think the NFL is right or that the Cable companies are right. I just wish they could get it straightened out. I would much rather get my Pats through Verizon fios but that's not an option.

 

[upstater1]

His next step is to ensure that everyone can watch HBO for free, and that PPV events are put on all local stations for free.

It isn't just that he doesn't understand football. He doesn't understand how television works, how networks bid for the right to show games and events.

HUH?

How do you know he doesn't understand football?

How about I lay out these facts and then see whether the consumer has a say in any of this:

1. The NFL has an anti-trust exemption which prevents them from being sued for violating certain federal laws. As such, they are sworn to uphold the public interest, the same way that telecoms are.

2. Networks exist because they rent the public airwaves which are owned by every citizen of the USA. They are not totally private enterprises. This is why the networks show the residential debates, which are ratings killers--not to mention the fact that there are no commercials.

3. Every locality owns the infrastructure used for cable as well, so that too takes into account the public interest.

Kerry was well within his line when he threatened the NFL and allowed Patriots' fans such as myself to watch the game.

 

[upstater1]

Good job by the Government Threaten the NFL with congressional hearings and than Eff up the free market by penalizing the people who did the right thing (WCVB ,etc) But it's all good for the lazy, whiners they get to watch the Pats for free.

Do some of you even realize that the NFLN doesn't even exist on a lot of cable networks?

 

[upstater1]

That's what government is all about -- creating handouts for idiots and screwing the people who have their **** together.

For example, the housing bailout. If you're dumb enough to take a mortgage you can't afford, you should have to live with the consequences when the bank forecloses. Instead, thanks to the government, all the smart people who managed their finances correctly are now paying extra tax to subsidize some *******'s McMansion.

????

Please explain what you are talking about.

If you know anything about how anything works, this is the furthest thing from the truth.

 

[upstater1]

Why. There is no such right.

The NFL was threatened and coercied and you think it's the right thing to do.

There is such a right.

The NFL, as an anti-trust exempt corporation, is bound to serve the public interest. This is something they MUST do if they want to preserve their exemption.

 

[upstater1]

Right? You have no "right" at all. Its America. Home of the Brave. Land of the Free.

Free to charge you to watch a game.

Then you might suggest that the gov't gets rid of the FCC and all of its Anti-monopoly laws which, in addition to regulating the actions of every corporation (especially Microsoft), also regulate national media, because if you imagine that corporations have a right to do whatever they want in violation of FCC rules and rules such as the Antitrust Act, you're not living in the country you think you are.

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

Do some of you even realize that the NFLN doesn't even exist on a lot of cable networks?

And whose fault is that?

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

There is such a right.

The NFL, as an anti-trust exempt corporation, is bound to serve the public interest. This is something they MUST do if they want to preserve their exemption.

What exactly is the pressing "Public Interest' here?

 

[mgteich]

Please qoute from the statute. Tell us all where the NFL agreed to show all NFL games for free to anyone with a TV set. If the NFL showing games only on NFLN is a violation, then perhaps Kerry should have brought this up before now. Perhaps the NFL be forced to show all games on public network TV. Oh BTW, is ESPN a network? Is ESPN on all TV's? Should ESPN be allowed to carry games without give the locals free access?

You seem to believe that the only way to demonstrate acting in the public interest is to provide all NFL games for free. Just because you think that this in the public interest doesn't make it so.

There is such a right.

The NFL, as an anti-trust exempt corporation, is bound to serve the public interest. This is something they MUST do if they want to preserve their exemption.

 

[upstater1]

You have no rights to view a football game. Check the Constitution and you will find no mention of football games. "Corporate America" has a right to sell their products to anyone they seem fit or restrict the sale of the product. We as consumers have a right to complain.And if "Corporate America" thinks it's bad for business that we are complaining, then they might change their policies.

Channel 5 should have exclusive rights to the Boston area. They made a deal with the NFL and signed the contract. Unless there was a clause in the contract giving the NFL the option to air it over other Boston stations then Channel 5 is exclusive.

I'm happy as hell that I'll be able to see the game in my own home now. But I had no "right" to see it.

You're so wrong about this. You need to check the provisions of the antitrust act to see what a company must do to fulfill the criteria of the antitrust exemption. media companies are bound by that law to allow the unfettered broadcast of events that are in the public interest. The only way for the NFL to wriggle out of this is to agree to give up their antitrust exemption.

What do you think the NFL values more? The antitrust exemption or the rights to keep this game on the NFLNetwork?

Don't answer. The NFL has already answered that one for you.

 

[upstater1]

Please qoute from the statute. Tell us all where the NFL agreed to show all NFL games for free to anyone with a TV set. If the NFL showing games only on NFLN is a violation, then perhaps Kerry should have brought this up before now. Perhaps the NFL be forced to show all games on public network TV. Oh BTW, is ESPN a network? Is ESPN on all TV's? Should ESPN be allowed to carry games without give the locals free access?

You seem to believe that the only way to demonstrate acting in the public interest is to provide all NFL games for free. Just because you think that this in the public interest doesn't make it so.

It's not all games. It's one game. Just like the networks aren't bound to show every political debate, just the main presidential ones.

The NFL is also absolutely bound bound to show a big majority of its games for free. Once it moves to pay-per-view, it loses it's anti-trust exemption. The NFL realizes this, and even the spokesman this week acknowledged it.

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 passed by Teddy Roosevelt went into effect to prevent groups such as the NFL from acting as monopolies. Effectively, if the Senators used the provisions of the bill against the NFL, they would force the NFL to break up into competing corporations, each team making its own sponsorship deal, and new teams seeking to start franchises would also have that opportunity.

The Sports Broadcast Act of 1961 is the one that establishes that groups such as the NFL that wish to retain their exemption must serve the public interest. The burden of proof for violating this criteria is not that hard to meet. It simply has to be shown that there is a public interest "rationale" that is being violated.