WCVB in court today over simulcast

[upstater1]

And whose fault is that?

Mine?

10 chars

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

????

Please explain what you are talking about.

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

I'd love to hear your version of the Mortgage Crisis. What do you believe to be the truth?

 

[Clonamery]

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.

It had been awhile since I'd thought about these acts. Thanks for the history lesson. It certainly is less entertaining than the casual, ignorant libertarian comment.

 

[Coleslaw]

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.

Socialism isn't stupid at all. Go donate to ron paul some more and caress your copy of the constitution you bought in philly for 2 dollars.

 

[upstater1]

What exactly is the pressing "Public Interest' here?

The legal terms for establishing the NFL has violated the public interest are vague, but I'm sure they would go somewhat like this: First, legally, the criteria asks, "What is the public interest rationale for broadcast?" The answer: "The NFL viewing public wants to bear witness to a historic game in which a team may finish the season 16-0 for the first time ever."

That would be enough. That's a viable rationale. It's the same exact reasoning that would be used for the Super Bowl. The public interest requires that viewers be allowed to see sports history in the making. Football is the nation's #1 sport, with huge audiences. The Super Bowl is practically a national holiday. This is why the Super Bowl will never be on non-network TV as long as the exemption is there. It's that exact same reasoning.

 

[upstater1]

It had been awhile since I'd thought about these acts. Thanks for the history lesson. It certainly is less entertaining than the casual, ignorant libertarian comment.

Hey, if the NFL lost its exemption, we could start a franchise among ourselves, and when the NFL teams refused to play us, we could sue them for collusion.

 

[OtisCampbell]

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.

I don't believe the NFL is willing to expand the Sunday Ticket beyond Direct TV - their deals with the broadcast networks preclude it. They will not offer it to cable or the other satellite provider. I know Dish Network would gladly take it on the same terms.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

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.

The particular example used was that the OP had a right to "Free". There is no such right. Regulation has no bearing on his argument, or my response.

 

[PantsB]

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.

Are you an anti-trust lawyer? Can you cite the statute that you're talking about?

IANAL but at least I've done some research. The relevant law that I've been able to find is the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.

The antitrust laws, as defined in section 1 of the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended (38 Stat. 730) [15 U.S.C. 12], or in the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended (38 Stat. 717) [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.], shall not apply to any joint agreement by or among persons engaging in or conducting the organized professional team sports of football, baseball, basketball, or hockey, by which any league of clubs participating in professional football, baseball, basketball, or hockey contests sells or otherwise transfers all or any part of the rights of such league’s member clubs in the sponsored telecasting of the games of football, baseball, basketball, or hockey, as the case may be, engaged in or conducted by such clubs. In addition, such laws shall not apply to a joint agreement by which the member clubs of two or more professional football leagues, which are exempt from income tax under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. 501 (c)(6)], combine their operations in expanded single league so exempt from income tax, if such agreement increases rather than decreases the number of professional football clubs so operating, and the provisions of which are directly relevant thereto.

As I read it, broadcasting of sports is explicitly exempt for anti-trust restrictions. Even if it wasn't, producing a product that was not universally available or was only available through certain channels would not be a violation of any kind of anti-trust as I understand it. No one is ripping Major League Soccer for its US soccer monopoly and showing many games only on Fox Soccer Channel.

 

[upstater1]

I'd love to hear your version of the Mortgage Crisis. What do you believe to be the truth?

It was explained in an earlier post that I should have read before responding to you. The banking industry is already self-regulating on this issue because they'd rather give mortgage holders favorable terms than foreclose on the home.

I suppose you could take advantage of the banking industry right now if you had an ARM by purposely refusing to send payment so that you could cut a good mortgage deal in your favor, but then, that would be unethical (perhaps), you would ruin your credit history, and you'd risk losing your house on the offchance that the bank would choose to foreclose upon violation.

Regardless, the taxpayers and ethical homeowners aren't being hurt by this decision by the bank (with gov't encouragement). The only people that are hurt are the dunderheads who already lost their homes and weren't given an opportunity to cut a deal (but really, you're not expressing sympathy with them are you?)

 

[mgteich]

I just wanted all to understand the base system from which the comments arose. And yes, Ron Paul, a libertarian, does indeed represent the opposite of your position. And for the record, I am a registered Democrat, and I believe in reasonable regulation. I am quite content with our system. Our presidential candidates will be much better than last time aound, a very low bar indeed. But no socialists need apply.

And actually I would support legislation whereby the NFL would be forced to give access to local channels at the same price as they charge cable.

Socialism isn't stupid at all. Go donate to ron paul some more and caress your copy of the constitution you bought in philly for 2 dollars.

 

[upstater1]

The particular example used was that the OP had a right to "Free". There is no such right. Regulation has no bearing on his argument, or my response.

To the contrary, a majority of the games HAVE to be on free over-the-air TV, and in certain instances--such as the Super Bowl or perhaps playoff games--those too have to be on FREE TV.

 

[PatsDeb]

How ironic is this. The Government threatens the NFL with hearings if they don't show the big game, the NFL hastily gives in but screws up the people who did the right thing, Those people in turn sue the NFL in a Government Court for damages that were in effect caused by the Governments intervention in the first place.

But the government really didn't do anything except give the NFL bad press. They did not go to court (nor could they have, legally) to force the issue. The NFL could have done something weeks ago about this. Instead they waited until the last minute and screwed, as you said, the people who did the right thing. The NFL should have anticipated this and negotiated to show the game outside of the Boston area on other networks, since they already had someone showing it here. There were ways to avoid screwing WCVB & ABC, but the NFL chose not to go that route. I suspect they are getting a fat check from NBC & CBS, who probably wouldn't do the deal unless they could show the game in the market most likely to watch the entire thing.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

To the contrary, a majority of the games HAVE to be on free over-the-air TV, and in certain instances--such as the Super Bowl or perhaps playoff games--those too have to be on FREE TV.

Please,
Show me where that is a "RIGHT", as defined in the normal way, the constitution and the bill of RIGHTS. Your spouting alot of opinion, with little to back it up.

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

But the government really didn't do anything except give the NFL bad press. They did not go to court (nor could they have, legally) to force the issue. The NFL could have done something weeks ago about this. Instead they waited until the last minute and screwed, as you said, the people who did the right thing. The NFL should have anticipated this and negotiated to show the game outside of the Boston area on other networks, since they already had someone showing it here. There were ways to avoid screwing WCVB & ABC, but the NFL chose not to go that route. I suspect they are getting a fat check from NBC & CBS, who probably wouldn't do the deal unless they could show the game in the market most likely to watch the entire thing.

How can you call the threats of Congressional hearings nothing?

NBC and CBS are getting it FREE of CHARGE If i was ABC and Fox I'd be pissed.

 

[upstater1]

Here's a decent article explaining the pitfalls on the NFL's moving from free TV to pay-per-view.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v47/no3/cox.html

In many ways, the NFL is a victim of its own success since the only thing that differentiates it for other leagues is the fact that it's so popular in the first place.

An average game becomes a cultural event that's in the public interest.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

I love the boxing analogy. Because it misses to boat by such a wide margin.

State and local governments do not build boxing rings for boxers, nor do they give them tax breaks or widen roads to accommodate them.

Boxing doesn't have special provisions to exempt it from federal anti-trust laws.

Football and some other team sports engage in labor practices that are illegal in every other industry. Yet football gets an exemption.

When every football stadium is privately funded with zero tax breaks and the teams pay for 100% of the security. Then the NFL can tell us taxpayers to go to hell. Until then, we have some rights.

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

To the contrary, a majority of the games HAVE to be on free over-the-air TV, and in certain instances--such as the Super Bowl or perhaps playoff games--those too have to be on FREE TV.

So if this game was on ESPN would it be your opinion that they would have to give it to an Over the Air Network, also? ESPN is a cable network and there is a fee to access it.

 

[upstater1]

Please,
Show me where that is a "RIGHT", as defined in the normal way, the constitution and the bill of RIGHTS. Your spouting alot of opinion, with little to back it up.

Keep reading. I've brought up the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Sports Broadcasting Act, and a legal article explaining the evolution of the Sports Act into the cable era.

Legally, the NFL would not be compelled to show this specific game. However, if they are found in volation of their exemption, the exemption could be pulled by congress, and then they'd be up ****s creek. It's like playing Russian-roulette. You send your lawyers in, and the next thing you know, congressman who have been known to vote for bridges to nowhere in Alaska, have just ripped away your exemption, and then you're up ****'s creek!

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

I love the boxing analogy. Because it misses to boat by such a wide margin.

State and local governments do not build boxing rings for boxers, nor do they give them tax breaks or widen roads to accommodate them.

Boxing doesn't have special provisions to exempt it from federal anti-trust laws.

Football and some other team sports engage in labor practices that are illegal in every other industry. Yet football gets an exemption.

When every football stadium is privately funded with zero tax breaks and the teams pay for 100% of the security. Then the NFL can tell us taxpayers to go to hell. Until then, we have some rights.

It's a 2 way street, the Government officials are bending over backwards giving away the taxpayers money to keep/attract those teams.