Congress to the rescue...maybe?? [Archive] - The Orange Mane

View Full Version : Congress to the rescue...maybe??

Rascal

11-15-2006, 11:31 AM

sirhcyennek81

11-15-2006, 11:33 AM

Yeah, this is important. Only a war on and everything. Lets pay attention to something that can wait until later.

:Broncos:

clarkster

11-15-2006, 11:36 AM

no ****, and how much do these people get paid? should be a "fleecing of america" spot on this...

SportinOne

11-15-2006, 11:39 AM

clarkster

11-15-2006, 11:42 AM

what ship you on?

Bronco_Beerslug

11-15-2006, 12:13 PM

Yeah, this is important. Only a war on and everything. Lets pay attention to something that can wait until later.

:Broncos:
This actually does deserve attention by Congress.

Believe it or not, national issues have to be addressed as well as the international f**kups.

Rohirrim

11-15-2006, 12:16 PM

I'm all for this. I think this is just the Senate sending the NFL a gentle nudge that their monopoly only extends so far as the average American fan isn't cut out of the loop. If they're going to start getting arrogant, perhaps its time their exemptions were reviewed?

sirhcyennek81

11-15-2006, 12:18 PM

This actually does deserve attention by Congress.

Believe it or not, national issues have to be addressed as well as the international ****ups.

No, what I mean is this, more attention will be devoted to this then needs be. Millions of dollars spent in hearings and meetings for them to decide no, the NFL is not violating anti-trust laws.

:Broncos:

watermock

11-15-2006, 12:19 PM

Well Gee...I guess you idiots were right when I said there were anti trust issues.

watermock

11-15-2006, 12:20 PM

No, what I mean is this, more attention will be devoted to this then needs be. Millions of dollars spent in hearings and meetings for them to decide no, the NFL is not violating anti-trust laws.

:Broncos:

Want to tell me why? Both Direct TV and NFL Network are in clear viiolation of anti-trust.

So is Exxon-Mobil.

watermock

11-15-2006, 12:22 PM

watermock

11-15-2006, 12:27 PM

It'd be nice if they could do something about this before the game actually happens...

I'm stuck on duty that day and needless to say the ship doesn't get directv... we do get cable.. just not the provider that has nfl network...

i really wanna see this game, so i'm considering buying my way out of duty that day.. may cost me like 50 bucks...

worth it? i don't know.

There isn't any reason to call a 5th time to mediacom for not carrying the NFL Channel. I just wind up with a dimwit after talking to a computer for 10 minutes.

Rock Chalk

11-15-2006, 12:37 PM

Yeah, this is important. Only a war on and everything. Lets pay attention to something that can wait until later.

:Broncos:

Its called multi-tasking. Most people can do it and governments are especially adept at it.

You think teh war isnt getting their attention? Dont be crazy. They can also focus on other things, because its a big country with lots of issues that need addressing. You dont address one thing at a time, nothing gets done that way. You do what you can for each issue. What exactly is hard to comprehend about that?

Willynowei

11-15-2006, 12:51 PM

NFL is getting out of hand, they have so many fans they couldn't care less about us; while the other leagues are struggling just to maintain ratings, the NFL doesn't even want it. Look at all the exclusive deals and channels their doing. No thanksgiving game, limited, exclusive deals on highlights.... WTF? and I used to be able to get a NFL fix in videogames with 2k5 during the offseason, now I've got Madden, which has gotten really bad since they wiped out the competition. Man, rant over, but I'm glad this is becomming an issue.

However, this should be a lawsuit, not a hearing. But at least the Cable companies are flexing their muscles now, when titans clash, the consumer wins, thats for sure. To the guy who said Congress should be focused on something more important: does it really matter? Its not like their going to get anything done.

smalltowngrll

11-15-2006, 01:05 PM

Yeah, it would be nice if they would intervene...seeing as how I'm calling my cable company today to cancel so I can get dish network. Oh the things we do for football!

Billy Clyde Puckett

11-15-2006, 01:18 PM

Actually, this should be investigated by the FTC and the DOJ - it is their responsibility. Congress is just grandstanding

Tredici

11-15-2006, 01:48 PM

Tw0mey

11-15-2006, 02:00 PM

Its called multi-tasking. Most people can do it and governments are especially adept at it.

You think teh war isnt getting their attention? Dont be crazy. They can also focus on other things, because its a big country with lots of issues that need addressing. You dont address one thing at a time, nothing gets done that way. You do what you can for each issue. What exactly is hard to comprehend about that?

Yes good point. Its Congress' job to take care of all these issues, at the same time if neccessary.

Mediator12

11-15-2006, 02:06 PM

Tredici to the rescue again!

That is the God's honest truth of the matter. I loved the Reagan era, but they certainly took away those protections didn't they?

As for the letter of the law on the anti-trust issues, they are already offering their product through multiple partners and are witholding only a small part of it for their own distribution. All of the major Networks have access to the NFL games now. The bids for the services are offered to anyone who has the highest bid. There simply is no problem with those games being played only on their network.

As for the NFL Network, the Cable companies are the ones screwing around. They are worried about ONE channel in over 200+ eating into their already large profits. They are simply upset that the NFL network and the NFL make Cable obsolete in watching their product. 95% of the games offered over the airways are Free of cable TV. The one exception is Monday night football on ESPN which ABC/ESPN payed Dearly to obtain. The Cable companies are losing revenue to Direct TV already and see this as the last straw. However, they are going to lose and going to lose bigtime. With all the bundling Services under one roof at the major telecoms and Cable providers, that has more anti-trust implications than the FREE NFL programming offered to the masses.

Taco John

11-15-2006, 02:09 PM

I don't see the problem here. There's no monopoly. Everyone in the United States has access to the NFL Channel. They might have to switch providers to get it (ie. get a dish) , but it's an available option to anyone who wants it bad enough.

sirhcyennek81

11-15-2006, 02:10 PM

Want to tell me why? Both Direct TV and NFL Network are in clear viiolation of anti-trust.

So is Exxon-Mobil.

Mock, what are they violating? In the extensive anti-trust laws on the books, what are they violating?

:Broncos:

sirhcyennek81

11-15-2006, 02:16 PM

Its called multi-tasking. Most people can do it and governments are especially adept at it.

You think teh war isnt getting their attention? Dont be crazy. They can also focus on other things, because its a big country with lots of issues that need addressing. You dont address one thing at a time, nothing gets done that way. You do what you can for each issue. What exactly is hard to comprehend about that?

Explain how the NFL playing a game on NFL Network is important to 95% of the country.

:Broncos:

Mediator12

11-15-2006, 02:22 PM

Explain how the NFL playing a game on NFL Network is important to 95% of the country.

:Broncos:

It is important to the Cable companies with deep pockets that just helped influence an election. Nuff said. Why else would they raise this issue the week after the election cycle. You have Specter "intrigued" over the issue, give me a break. Its Politics worst side showing again and a reason most people do not even bother to vote.

Garcia Bronco

11-15-2006, 02:54 PM

ahh yeah..the NFL can do whatever it wants with it's property...making this a big waste of time

rugbythug

11-15-2006, 03:49 PM

Lets get real there is absolutley no Antitrust issues here. Remember that the NFL is only one SPORT. Access to all other sporting events-NBA, MLB, NHL- will not be affected.

Taco John

11-15-2006, 04:12 PM

People forget that the NFL has no obligation to even televise their games.

JCMElway

11-15-2006, 04:13 PM

Yeah, this is important. Only a war on and everything. Lets pay attention to something that can wait until later.

:Broncos:

Wait until later? The Denver/KC game comes on in a little over a week! We have to get this thing solved! ;)

sirhcyennek81

11-15-2006, 04:15 PM

Wait until later? The Denver/KC game comes on in a little over a week! We have to get this thing solved! ;)

Well, with hillary pushing healthcare as the number 1 issue, hard pressed to make the NFL the #1 goal of the new congress.

:Broncos:

JCMElway

11-15-2006, 04:24 PM

Well, with hillary pushing healthcare as the number 1 issue, hard pressed to make the NFL the #1 goal of the new congress.

:Broncos:

However, this could be an issue that would resonnate with a lot of voters. Not many voters unsderstand the intricacies of Iraq or foreign policy, but imagine being the senator that voted against bring the NFL into millions of voters homes. That's a way to lose an election very quickly.

As sad as that is to say, that's where the priorities of most Americans are.

maven

11-15-2006, 04:27 PM

Good work lobbyists for doing your job. The bonus check is in the mail. Signed Adelphia, TW, Comcast.

TexanBob

11-15-2006, 04:38 PM

FWIW, when the USFL sued the NFL, the ruling was that the NFL *is* a monopoly that violates anti-trust laws. It also found, however, that the USFL was its own worst enemy and awarded them $1 in damages, which was tripled to $3. The only sport with an exemption from anti-trust laws is Major League Baseball.

boltaneer

11-15-2006, 05:08 PM

While I understand the anti-trust laws, I don't understand whey they're singling out NFL Network.

As it currently stands, a person cannot watch the majority of NFL games, unless they subscribe to Direct TV and Sunday Ticket.

I cannot watch the vast majority of baseball games or hockey games or basketball games without subscribing to some sort of package.

The action is one that makes sense but the reasoning is wrong IMO.

Atwater His Ass

11-15-2006, 05:35 PM

All I ask is that they start showing the freaking double header on BOTH CBS and FOX. There is no reason both channels cannot have 2 games every Sunday.

Bronx33

11-15-2006, 05:46 PM

At the very least (iam intrigued) that our goverment doesn't have better issues to deal with about now.

Jens1893

11-15-2006, 05:50 PM

As far as I know the Kansas City game will be picked up by a local channel (I think it´s Fox in Denver) in the KC and Denver markets.

KipCorrington25

11-15-2006, 07:13 PM

Mock called this ahead of time so props to him, the modern day Trustbuster.

Hogan11

11-15-2006, 08:47 PM

Good....because I don't care if it's right or wrong to be honest about it, unless Time Warner starts carrying the NFL Network tomorrow, I want the NFL Network to lose in this one.

clarkster

11-16-2006, 08:29 AM

man, im in awe at the amount of worthless knowledge here on this board, and even more impressed at how some people will argue for the sake of arguing, its almost like my wife is here posting

watermock

11-16-2006, 08:45 AM

What Anti-Trust issues? All the guts were taken out of the anti-trust legislations during the Reagan administration.

Nobody has noticed all the mergers going on? No one has noticed how the major oil companies are nearly back to being the 7 Sisters? No one has noticed how ATT has re-assembled while using different names?

No such thing as anti trust anymore. But maybe the country will re-institute the concept for the NFL.

It hasn't passed MY notice Tred. I have been screaming anti-trust on these issues before most anyone here.

All the big concerns are going into oligopoly or even monopoly status. Credit Card companies, Banks, Cell service, Direct TV has a monopoly for no reason, The 7 sisters are quietly regrouping...

I'm going to be mad as a hornet Thanksgiving evening. The NFL is overpricing their monopoly network to force people to get Direct TV, plain and simple. I don't know how much grease Murdoch applied to get a monopoly on Sunday Ticket, but it's absurd.

It's such blantant anti-trust to run their own network and withold or overprice so cable companies wont or can't carry it.

Hell yes, there are anti-trust violations all over the map these days.

While I'm on a rant...One of these days I'm going to go into a rage against the computers that you have to deal with for 15 minutes to finally get a human in India that you can barely even understand.

Computers literally hang up on you these days. It's infuriating.

watermock

11-16-2006, 08:49 AM

Traditionally, the FCC required to have at least two providers for a service.
That seems to have been abandoned by graft and payoffs.

If I get direct TV, I won't even get local CBS channels. They seem to think I should throw an antenna on the roof. I don't need it because I get 3 CBS local channels now. It's just the NFL network that is pissing me off. Noone at Mediacom can give me an answer, and evidently noone at Time Warner can either.

I was talking to the local Direct TV salesperson here in town and asked her why I should get the service if I wouldn't get local CBS. Then I explained why I hadn't and asked her if SHE had the service. She said NO she didn't because of that exact same reason.

I allready have enough wiring in this room to get halfway to the moon. 14 various devices just in eyshot.

Willynowei

11-16-2006, 08:52 AM

What Anti-Trust issues? All the guts were taken out of the anti-trust legislations during the Reagan administration.

Nobody has noticed all the mergers going on? No one has noticed how the major oil companies are nearly back to being the 7 Sisters? No one has noticed how ATT has re-assembled while using different names?

No such thing as anti trust anymore. But maybe the country will re-institute the concept for the NFL.

lol. The difference is its not hurting consumers, yet. Oil prices are not controlled and its unlikely they will be from here on. The telephone is dead. The cell phone market is where its at, and you can bet there's plenty of competition there.

In the event that a single market is dominated by two large suppliers with divergent interests, the competition will always be fierce. The consumers win, the small businesses, lose. Its nothing like it used be, when you had a single behemoth and it hurt competitive pricing.

Cable companies though, have and are still monopolies in a sense because each region has a limited selection of cable providers, and they basically milk their territory.

In the long run, either cellphone or cable companies will win, but an entire industry will eventually die out. Just look at your internet service option right now, Verizon wireless could get you EVDO networking anywhere in the country with broadband speeds. Every few years that speed triples and soon its going to be the fastest available. Its like airlines taking over the railroads, the more expensive method eventually wins once technology catches on.

Give me a break, doom and gloomers, we are far from the gilded age.

watermock

11-16-2006, 09:02 AM

God your ignorant.

You think the merger of Exxon/Mobile was good for competition?

There will always be a compeditor? Direct TV has an absolute monopoly on Sunday Ticket.

Credit card companies are merging into monoliths.

Tell me how much cometition I have in ground based cable? Hell, even Direct TV and Dish Channel were merged. Most people don't even know this happened, especially you.

Did you know that they merged? Huh? They kept seperate names but share their sats now. Murdoch owns both and they are merged. Look it up.

So keep on deluding yourself that there is always competition. While Murdoch acts like there is, there really isn't.

watermock

11-16-2006, 09:04 AM

Oil prices aren't controled? Is that why they fluxuated a full dollar up and down for no reason, actually falling when the Alaska pipeline was down?

That was more influenced by speculators that got out and started selling short than the oil companies, but it's still a very real spectre.

Arkansas Bronco

11-16-2006, 09:47 AM

I am not going to hide it, I realy dont understand what is wrong. I hated not having the NFL Network so I switched over to Direct TV to get it. I dont see how anyone can tell the NFL where it has to put its games. I figure this is the NFL's game and they have the right to put it where they want it or not even show it at all (which I know wouldnt happen).
I mean if I didnt have Cable/dish I would miss the Monday night game why isnt that on free TV. Why isnt congress trying to get all pro-sports off of cable you know so everyone gets a chance to see what the networks decide what we need to see. Well Cable/Dish Net/Dirrect Tv all have different programing if congress made them all carrie the same stuff then no one would have the edge. Basicaly I dont see this as the NFL's problem I see it as TW (cable company I had before Direct TV) bieng to tight to pay to have the channel. It is Time Warner that need's to make it right.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 09:48 AM

watermock

11-16-2006, 09:54 AM

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/October/02_at_631.htm

The Justice Dept. seems to think so. You are a fool.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9071-2455498,00.html

Looks like Murdoch is bailing out...14 hour old article.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 09:58 AM

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/October/02_at_631.htm

The Justice Dept. seems to think so. You are a fool.
LOL

Your ignorance is unparalleled at times. They didn't merge, they are TWO separate companies.

Billy Clyde Puckett

11-16-2006, 09:59 AM

Mock - At one time EchoStar (Dish) and Direct TV were considering a merger. It never happened. However, if Liberty Media gets Direct TV from News Corp, the next move for Liberty could be to grab Echo.

They very well could share some satellite assets. Almost all of the satellites in orbit have shared functionality. One satellite system I have worked with is shared by a private communications group and the DOD.

Natedogg

11-16-2006, 10:01 AM

All I ask is that they start showing the freaking double header on BOTH CBS and FOX. There is no reason both channels cannot have 2 games every Sunday.

No kidding. Why in the hell isnt this the case? anybody?

watermock

11-16-2006, 10:45 AM

God, what part of MERGER escaped you Beerslug? Apparently the Justice Dept. woke up in time.

The Department said if the merger were allowed to proceed, it would eliminate competition between the nation's two most significant direct broadcast satellite services - Hughes's DirecTV and Echostar's DISH Network - and would substantially reduce competition in the multichannel video programming distribution business to the detriment of consumers throughout the United States. The Department was joined in its lawsuit by the Attorneys General of 23 states, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The merger apparently was blocked. So I guess when I was crying anti-trust violation I was correct, right? Sounds like Murdoch is cutting line now that his little scheme has failed somewhat.

Your the ignorant, BeerSlug.

I usually get 6 games on Sunday because I get Fox and 3 CBS stations in different regions. One is on the very fringe of the Bronco region, another is in the KC region. Fox is in the Viking region. I'm literally on the edges of three different regions.

watermock

11-16-2006, 10:49 AM

No kidding. Why in the hell isnt this the case? anybody?

It has something to do with regional coverage. They won't show a game on the opposite network if both stations are in the same region.

I imagine NFL network will eventually make it to all the cable monoliths. I used to enjoy listening to the distressed coaches Monday on ESPN2 but I guess NFL network stole that too.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 10:56 AM

God, what part of MERGER escaped you Beerslug? This part didn't...

posted by watermock, drunk again at 9am
"Hell, even Direct TV and Dish Channel were merged. Most people don't even know this happened, especially you. Did you know that they merged? Huh? They kept seperate names but share their sats now. Murdoch owns both and they are merged. Look it up."

The merger apparently was blocked.
Your the ignorant, BeerSlug. This happened 5 years ago, you're right on top of things as usual.

I usually get 6 games on Sunday because I get Fox and 3 CBS stations in different regions. One is on the very fringe of the Bronco region, another is in the KC region. Fox is in the Viking region. I'm literally on the edges of three different regions."Noone" really gives a sh*t where you are or what you're on the edge of.

ChargerChuck

11-16-2006, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by watermock View Post
God, what part of MERGER escaped you Beerslug?
This part didn't...

posted by watermock, drunk again at 9am
"Hell, even Direct TV and Dish Channel were merged. Most people don't even know this happened, especially you. Did you know that they merged? Huh? They kept seperate names but share their sats now. Murdoch owns both and they are merged. Look it up."

That's some funny stuff Ha!

But how does a watermock get 60,000 posts? Yikes!

watermock

11-16-2006, 11:10 AM

You dimwit...it was filed barely over 4 years ago. FILED. Not 5. Excuse me that I wasn't aware it was blocked for the very reasons I was mad about it. It certainly wasn't on the news.

The core argument is about NFL Network and the alliance that seems to exist between the NFL and Directv.

If you think it's OK for the NFL to broadcast it's own games and don't think it's an anti-trust violation that's your opinion.

The NFL didn't even have to bargain in good faith for the broadcast rights because they own the network. There was no competition for them to even bid for those games. So what part of anti-trust violation escapes you?

Fine, the Justice Guys and the FCC blocked the MERGER and it fell thru. This doesn't change the monopoly status of Directv or the lack of the channel even on digital cable.

It's just a matter of time before games will become pay per view on cable...basically, they allready are on Directv.

watermock

11-16-2006, 11:11 AM

obediah

11-16-2006, 11:11 AM

blahblahblah!

ya know i am glad the NFL is getting the games. I pay for the NFL network and its worth it. Im fricken tired of getting horrible reception from CBS, half the time they dont put the first down line on the screen, i hate cbs and hope i never have to watch another game on CBS.. Plus i dont care how dull the game is i dont think its right that they turn my game off in the 4rth half to go to another game.

I hope the NFL takes over the whole enchilada and "the sunday tickets" bites the big one.

right or wrong im all for it :P

Obediah

ChargerChuck

11-16-2006, 11:20 AM

obediah

11-16-2006, 11:26 AM

i understand that, and who is to say that the NFL network wouldnt do some sort of "Sunday Ticket"

Obediah

clarkster

11-16-2006, 11:31 AM

honestly id perfer if they made a PPV for games. I personally dont want to watchall the games every sunday, but id pay 3.95 to watch the broncos(im out of state, so rarely do i get the games) if i was in denver, it would be the same, if it was KC vs SD and I didnt get it, id pay 3.95 to watch it

ChargerChuck

11-16-2006, 11:35 AM

i understand that, and who is to say that the NFL network wouldnt do some sort of "Sunday Ticket"
Obediah
Because it's contracted out until 2010 to DirecTv right now and the NFL is making billions off of it. And info I'm hearing suggests that DirecTv will extend that contract again well before it expires.

watermock

11-16-2006, 11:37 AM

I pay almost 100 bucks a month for a cable network that isn't going or cant broadcast a prime time game?

We allready have people willing to lay down for PPV football. Unreal. I predicted this a long time ago. The NFL is just taking little steps in increments thinking noone will notice.

You explain to me why Time Warner and MediaCom can't get the NFL feed or Sunday Ticket.

watermock

11-16-2006, 11:38 AM

Because it's contracted out until 2010 to DirecTv right now and the NFL is making billions off of it. And info I'm hearing suggests that DirecTv will extend that contract again well before it expires.

They only gave the rights to a single bidder. That's not as bad as I don't think the NFL network even had to bid for game rights.

Natedogg

11-16-2006, 11:44 AM

It has something to do with regional coverage. They won't show a game on the opposite network if both stations are in the same region.

I imagine NFL network will eventually make it to all the cable monoliths. I used to enjoy listening to the distressed coaches Monday on ESPN2 but I guess NFL network stole that too.

:kiddingme

Can someone less drunk please try to explain why both networks dont have a doubleheader each sunday. It seems like it would generate a whole bunch more revenue.

Billy Clyde Puckett

11-16-2006, 11:47 AM

You explain to me why Time Warner and MediaCom can't get the NFL feed or Sunday Ticket.

They can get NFL Network any time they want to pay for it. The cable/satellite companies are trying to play hardball with the content vendors. ESPN has been raping them on roylties, but the cable companies are not viable without it. They don't want NFLN to gain the same heavy handed position, but NFL may have them by the short hairs. You'll get it soon, but your rates are likely to go up.

watermock

11-16-2006, 11:51 AM

ChargerChuck

11-16-2006, 11:57 AM

I know that perfectly well.

That's why it's anti-trust, or should I say, just another reason it is.

I don't claim to be a telecomunications expert, Big Man seems to know the ropes. I suspect that the NFL is holding the cablecom's hostage, it's the only explaination.

I think their agenda is even more dubious tho Big Guy...I think it's to sweep in the era of PPV.
I really don't know what you're talking about but both satellite companies offer it and so do other cable companies. It's up to Time/Warner and anyone else who doesn't offer it to make that choice. It's readily available to them.

scfan

11-16-2006, 12:10 PM

As I stated, I stand corrected...it was blocked. The fundamental arguments stand on their own. It wasn't the only one I made. The fact it was blocked only solidifies my argument.

Were any of the traditional networks even allowed to bid on the thursday night games?

I seriously thought that the NFL Channel would be on cable by now, but I thought Sunday Ticket would be on cable too by now.

The NFL Channel IS on cable. I get it on Comcast cable. It is also available on Direct TV.
Sunday ticket is still only available on Direct TV. I doubt it will ever go to cable, Why would Direct TV sell it to thier competion?

Being WAY WAY outside of the Dnver area, I chose to carry Comcast cable, and Direct TV ( with the NFL Sunday package) when the Broncos are showing either Nationaly, or regionally in my area I watch them on cable ( comcast). When they are not, I switch to Direct TV and watch them on the Sunday Ticket. It's the only way I know how to never miss a Bronco game.

As to the Monopoly issue, I don't really give a crap. I got more important things to worry about. We are consumers, we consume. We want it , we get it. Sure it costs money, but it is your choice to get it or not get it. Your Po'd because it an monopoly? why? you have a choice. if you don't chose to pay for it, then how does it effect your life? If you chose to pay for it then its your decision , so how does that effect your life?

watermock

11-16-2006, 12:27 PM

scfan

11-16-2006, 12:36 PM

Paying for a monopoly doesn't make it any less of a monopoly. It doesn't chang the fact it is.

Great, you get it on comcast, and can afford to have both cable and DTV apparently.

I have gotten every Denver game all year.

Have a picnic having to have two servers. Another thing...Time Warner and MediaCom isn't comcast.

As I stated, I would get less CBS than I do allready with Directv.

I honestly thought the cable company would carry it by the begining of the thursday night games. Oh well...

I admit its a monopoly Mock, I just don't care. Thats all I was trying to say.

I have two providers because my wife likes the programing she wants on Comcast, I like Direct TV. the bonus of having both of course is as i stated. I never miss a Bronco game. I'm happy you are able to get all the games. i wouldn't without them.

As for affording them !! I'm spending my kids Inheritance

DeuceOfClub

11-16-2006, 01:55 PM

From TMQ (11/14/06) (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/061114)

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on whether the DirecTV monopoly on Sunday Ticket is anti-consumer and constitutes restraint of trade (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2440). Finally, Congress has noticed this issue! TMQ's prediction: The NFL, which seriously does not want Congress rethinking the antitrust exemption granted to the league in 1961 over its television contracts, better move pronto to make Sunday Ticket available to all cable carriers. The 1961 agreement with Congress specifies that in exchange for an antitrust exemption, the NFL will make its broadcasts available to everyone. Instead, the Sunday Ticket broadcast operates under a monopoly structure. Congress is already in a foul mood about the NCAA's tax-exempt status for profitable D-I football. The new Congress will want to differentiate itself from the last by being pro-consumer. The NFL's television contracts are worth nearly $4 billion a year; the league would be foolish to run any risk with that sum. Roger Goodell, change your deal with DirecTV before Congress changes it for you.

In other NFL television news, we sure hope you like the 2-7 Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who were on "Monday Night Football" last night and will be telecast nationally at Dallas on Thanksgiving Day. Maybe you'll want to plan a family touch-football game for early afternoon on T-Day, since the early nationally televised contest is Miami at Detroit, teams with a current combined record of 5-13. But the interesting thing about Thanksgiving will be the first NFL Network live game broadcast that night.

There's a quiet conspiracy theory holding that the NFL Network, which wants cable carriers to place its product on basic cable, not on a premium-pay digital tier, manipulated the Thanksgiving schedule. Being on basic cable is far more attractive financially than being on premium, because basic goes to most of the country's households and thus is very appealing to advertisers. Time Warner and Comcast are resisting putting the NFL Network on basic cable -- they think the monthly fee the NFL Network is asking is too high. Time Warner has even established a Web site that aggressively denounces NFL Network's money demands (http://nflgetreal.com/). But can any cable carrier resist offering all customers the best access to the most important sport? Now consider the conspiracy angle. Check the Thanksgiving lineup -- a crummy game on CBS (Miami at Detroit), a crummy game on Fox (Tampa at Dallas), and a fantastic game on NFL Network (Denver at Kansas City). Technically the NFL Network bid for television rights to NFL games as an independent firm receiving no special treatment, and technically Harvard doesn't favor the children of big donors, either. The conspiracy theory holds that the league manipulated the Thanksgiving schedule so that when millions of Americans look in their newspaper listings next week and realize Thanksgiving's hot game is on a channel their cable carriers do not provide, they will call Comcast, Time Warner and others to demand that the NFL Network be added to basic cable. Don't be surprised if this happens across the country on the day before Thanksgiving.

watermock

11-16-2006, 02:04 PM

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 02:18 PM

From TMQ (11/14/06) (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/061114)

[I]Today the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on whether the DirecTV monopoly on Sunday Ticket is anti-consumer and constitutes restraint of trade (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2440).
And their finding will be........................................No, Sunday Ticket does not constitute restraint of trade. Why? because ST offers out of market games while network TV offers all home and away cities free games.

Mile High Mojoe

11-16-2006, 02:18 PM

From PFW...

CONGRESS "INTRIGUED" BY NFLN

The Associated Press reports that Congress is taking a look at the plans of the NFL's in-house television network to air regular-season games.

"We're intrigued, to put it mildly," Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said during hearings held on Tuesday.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is analyzung whether the NFL's plan to air its own games on its own network raises antitrust issues. In our view, the hearings suggest that perhaps Time Warner -- the league's primary adversary in a high-stakes game of cable chicken which soon will boil over when the best game on Thanksgiving isn't available in many markets -- has enough juice in D.C. to make trouble for the NFL.

The hearings first were mentioned earlier in the day by Gregg Easterbook's TMQ on ESPN.com's Page 2.

Testifying at the hearing were NFL executive V.P. and general counsel Jeff Pash, DirecTV executive V.P. Daniel Fawcett, and Time Warner C.O.O. Landel Hobbs. Easterbrook suggests (and we agree) that the NFL should move quickly to make the Sunday Ticket package available via cable. We also think that the league should bury the hatchet with Time Warner pronto, working out a deal that makes NFLN available to millions of consumers who don't presently get it.

I've had the DirecTv NFL Sunday Ticket since 1997. I'm not that big of tv watcher and the only reason I have DirecTv is so I can get the Broncos games. I think this is a good anti-trust case. I for one wish the Ticket was available on cable.

I've moved many times over the last several years and each time it's always an adventure wondering if I'll be able to get a single with my dish or not. It seems unfair to me that fans are who don't live within the local tv area of a team they follow are forced to have but one option to get the games they really want to watch on DirecTV.

I hope the NFL concedes. The NFL Network should be allowed to go to cable someday when they do, I'm throwing out the dish.

Natedogg

11-16-2006, 02:18 PM

But I'm an idiot right?

I have been called an idiot, yet Directv was blocked, and Murdoch is bailing out.

I said that NFL network was an anti competition/anti-trust issue.

I also said that the NFL Network was likely making agressive money demands.

So every argument I have said is true.

Yeah, maybe if you could have formed your ideas as eloquently as TMQ did you wouldnt have been ridiculed. At least you didnt mention your cat.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 02:20 PM

I hope the NFL concedes. The NFL Network should be allowed to go to cable someday when they do, I'm throwing out the dish. Please try and read and understand ........................THEY ARE! Any cable or satellite provider has the option to carry the NFL Network.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 02:24 PM

But I'm an idiot right?
Yes you are
I have been called an idiot, yet Directv was blocked, and Murdoch is bailing out.
DirecTv was blocked?
I said that NFL network was an anti competition/anti-trust issue.
It isn't by law.
I also said that the NFL Network was likely making agressive money demands.
The American way, it's called capitalism.
So every argument I have said is true.
None are so far

....

Mile High Mojoe

11-16-2006, 02:32 PM

Please try and read and understand ........................THEY ARE! Any cable or satellite provider has the option to carry the NFL Network.

I understand that the NFL Network can be picked by cable companies. Guess I wasn't clear I'd like them to tackle the whole issue of DirecTv having a lock on being the only way you can get all the games. Guess they are 2 different issues, this one could be considered an anti-trust too couldn't it? I'm just fed up with the whole dish thing. I was living in San Diego before the season started and the apartment were I lived didn't have a clear view of the southern sky so I had to suspend my service until I moved up here.

The one Thanksgiving game aside this issue to me is much bigger.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 02:50 PM

I understand that the NFL Network can be picked by cable companies. Guess I wasn't clear I'd like them to tackle the whole issue of DirecTv having a lock on being the only way you can get all the games. Guess they are 2 different issues, this one could be considered an anti-trust too couldn't it? I'm just fed up with the whole dish thing. I was living in San Diego before the season started and the apartment were I lived didn't have a clear view of the southern sky so I had to suspend my service until I moved up here.

The one Thanksgiving game aside this issue to me is much bigger.
As far as Sunday Ticket, that's what Tuesday's Senate hearing was about, the question is are you being harmed (missing your cities broadcast of a home or away game) by only one provider offering out of market games. And that answer is no.

This has been decided in court once already.

watermock

11-16-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by watermock
But I'm an idiot right?
Yes you are
I have been called an idiot, yet Directv was blocked, and Murdoch is bailing out.
DirecTv was blocked?

Yes it was, by the justice department and the FCC.

I said that NFL network was an anti competition/anti-trust issue.
It isn't by law.

Your such an idiot...it isn't a matter of the NFL Channel winning a bidding right...the NFL just handed them the thursday night games without a bid...that's anti-trust violation moron.

I also said that the NFL Network was likely making agressive money demands.
The American way, it's called capitalism.
So every argument I have said is true.
None are so far.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 02:55 PM

From testimony at Tuesday's hearing....

-----------------------------------------------------------
TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY PASH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
NOVEMBER 14, 2006

snip...

NFL Sunday Ticket

NFL Sunday Ticket is a satellite television package that permits fans to view “out-of-market” games. A fan living in Washington, for example, would ordinarily see games of the Washington Redskins as well as one or two other games on Sunday afternoon. That same fan, by purchasing NFL Sunday Ticket, has the opportunity to see any NFL game being played that day.

NFL Sunday Ticket was first introduced in 1994, and approximately 1.8 million homes and commercial establishments currently subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket. The package is designed to be a service for a limited number of more serious fans who want to watch games not shown by the broadcast networks where they live.

Because NFL Sunday Ticket is available exclusively on satellite via DirecTV, it serves to advance the interests of both the NFL and the federal antitrust laws. NFL Sunday Ticket supplements existing broadcast television. No fan needs to purchase NFL Sunday Ticket in order to see the local teams’ games, a national prime time contest each week, a wide range of attractive match ups featuring other teams, and all playoff games. Consequently, NFL Sunday Ticket does not displace the primary role of broadcasters, nor does it displace local affiliates as the means of watching telecasts of the home team’s games. NFL Sunday Ticket is accepted by the League’s broadcast partners as complementary to their own telecasts. The FCC reached the same conclusion in its report on sports migration: “As a threshold matter, we do not see the NFL package as a sports migration issue. It appears to be a net addition to output and to the choices lawfully available to dish owners and commercial establishments.”

NFL Sunday Ticket also furthers the goals of antitrust laws in at least two important respects. Because it involves the creation of a new product that responds to consumer demand, NFL Sunday Ticket enhances consumer choice by giving the option to view NFL games that are not otherwise televised where they live – an option that did not previously exist. This is precisely the kind of activity that firms are encouraged to engage in by the antitrust laws. By responding to consumer demand and enhancing consumer choice, NFL Sunday Ticket promotes consumer welfare, which is the primary focus of the antitrust laws.

Read the full testimony here (http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2440&wit_id=5841)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
snip...

This same policy will apply to the games that will be shown, beginning later this month, on the NFL Network. While those games will be available throughout the country via cable and satellite carriers that offer the NFL Network, they will similarly be available on free, over-the-air television in the home cities of the competing teams, on the same basis as if they were televised on a broadcast network or on ESPN.

In short, no fan needs to pay to see a wide variety of NFL games, including all games of the home team. In general, NFL fans will have available 90 or more games on free television during the regular and post-season.

The NFL’s television policy, and particularly its overwhelming emphasis on broadcast television, is intended to serve three main goals. First, because NFL teams normally play once each week, we try to make each game a special event and obtain the broadest possible audience for those games. The best way to do so has been, and continues to be, through broadcast television.

watermock

11-16-2006, 03:00 PM

EA's announcement it has signed an exclusive licensing deal with the NFL and the NFL Players Association effectively removes the competition from one of the industry's most popular genres. Under the terms of the deal, no one else will be allowed to develop or publish a video game (for any system) featuring NFL teams, players, stadiums or footage for the next five years.

EA did not announce the terms of the deal, but sources told me the price tag was north of $300 million (though well below the $500 million figure some have suggested).

Assuming that's correct, at least one industry analyst feels EA (Research) might have overpaid.

"If they paid more than $200 million, then I seriously question their judgment," said Michael Pachter, an analyst with Wedbush Morgan Securities.

Sports games account for more than 20 percent of all video games sold – and football titles are by far the leader in that category. They appeal to a widespread audience and consistently top the sales charts. For EA, in particular, they've been a windfall, selling over 40 million copies over the past 15 years.

But 2004 brought competition like EA had not experienced before. Take Two Interactive teamed up with Sega and ESPN to offer "ESPN NFL 2K5," which critics said was as good, if not better, than "Madden". Beyond that, the game was priced at a rock-bottom $19.99 (which EA finally matched on Nov. 8).

Madden 2005 has faced stiff competiton this year.
It's probable Take Two (Research) would have had to raise prices next year. What we'll never know is how many fans would have stayed with the brand – and what the long-term effect would have been on EA's business.

Take Two, naturally, spoke out against the announcement.

"We believe that the decisions of the [NFL] and Players Inc. to grant an exclusive license for videogames do a tremendous disservice to the consumers ... limiting their choices, curbing creativity and almost certainly leading to higher game prices," it said in a statement.

I find it amusing I am fighting with a flaming liberal over serious anti-trust issues.

BeerSlug is so clueless it's amusing. He's a flaming liberal but doesn't have the first clue about what constitues an anti-trust violation. Granting exclusive rights to gaming isn't a huge deal IMO...but it's still a violation of it.

Maybe the bigger point is that if you give the NFL, they will take a mile. They are allready getting HUGE network contracts.

If you don't see this as the money grab your an ignorant moron.

KipCorrington25

11-16-2006, 03:01 PM

Mock is right on here. People need to actually read what he is saying and not knee jerk react to it.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 03:04 PM

Mock is right on here. People need to actually read what he is saying and not knee jerk react to it.
Hilarious!
He hasn't been "right" about anything yet except that the FCC didn't allow the Echostar merger although he didn't know about that until I told him there was NO merger.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 03:10 PM

Hearing testimony continued........

--------------------------------------------------------
Written Testimony
Daniel M. Fawcett
Executive Vice President, Business and Legal Affairs and Programming Acquisition DIRECTV, Inc.
Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
“Competition in Sports Programming and Broadcasting: Are Consumers Winning?”
November 14, 2006

snip....

The program access rules thus work exactly the way Congress intended them to. They enable satellite providers and other new entrants to provide viewers with “must-have” programming that cable would otherwise keep for itself. Yet, they allow all video distributors to provide a differentiated product that would spur competition.

II. The NFL Sunday Ticket was Precisely the Type of Exclusive Deal Envisioned by the Program Access Provisions to Spur Competition.

Perhaps the best example of an exclusive arrangement helping – not harming – competition is The NFL Sunday Ticket. DIRECTV, as a new entrant, was able to get a foot in the door of this highly concentrated industry in part by offering unique content, such as The Sunday Ticket. These unique offerings helped DIRECTV to differentiate itself and thereby break the stranglehold of the cable monopolies. The cable industry, in turn, found itself forced to innovate and become more responsive to customer’s concerns – today offering a competitive, attractive package that includes its own differentiated video-on-demand and bundled internet offerings. This is exactly what Congress had in mind when it enacted the program access provisions. DIRECTV thus believes that the NFL Sunday Ticket raises no meaningful antitrust concerns. To the contrary, it has served the purpose of the antitrust laws by contributing to a competitive video services marketplace.

A comparison of the differences between The Sunday Ticket and kinds of anticompetitive arrangements in which the incumbent cable operators have engaged with respect to regional sports exemplifies this point. One key difference is that DIRECTV obtained rights to The NFL Sunday Ticket in a fair and open marketplace. DIRECTV, a competitor without market power (only 15% market share nationwide) bid in the open market for this package of out of market NFL games by negotiating with an unaffiliated provider to obtain these rights. Indeed, the most recent bidding process was open to DIRECTV’s cable competitors as well.

By contrast, in Philadelphia, where Comcast has given itself “exclusive rights” to the Phillies, Flyers and 76ers, Comcast has a 70% market share. It owns the programming in question. It even has an ownership interest in two of the teams (Flyers and 76ers). Thus, this was not an arms-length negotiation that was open to all competitors.

Another key difference is that the NFL Sunday Ticket is a premium package of games that historically had been unavailable to viewers. It allows football fans to see games outside the region where they live. But, in all markets, every pro-football fan, no matter how he chooses to get television – over-the-air, cable, or satellite – can see his home team play.

By contrast, in Philadelphia and elsewhere, incumbent cable operators deny local fans their right to see their home team. The end result: Fans of the Phillies, 76ers and Flyers must either give up the right to root for their home team or give up their right to subscribe to the video provider of their choosing. Nor is Philadelphia the only case. Cox Communications offers its Channel 4 San Diego with exclusive rights to San Diego Padres games only to cable operators. So San Diego sports fans cannot watch their favorite team unless they subscribe to cable.

Most importantly, the NFL Sunday Ticket has helped DIRECTV emerge as a competitor to cable. Cable operators, to the contrary, are withholding vertically integrated sports programming to subvert competition and the intent of the program access provisions. And their efforts have borne fruit. Indeed, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) recently found that “the percentage of television households that subscribe to DBS service in Philadelphia is 40% below what would otherwise be expected given the characteristics of the market” than if DBS was permitted to offer Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia. Likewise, DIRECTV’s market share in the San Diego DMA is practically half the national average.

III. Cable Operators Have Been Able to Subvert Competition Because of Loopholes in the Program Access Rules.

Cable operators have been able to subvert competition in this manner because of what has since come be known as the “terrestrial loophole.” As discussed above, in an effort to foster the development of local news channels, the program access rules only apply to programming delivered to cable systems by satellite. Because it delivers Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia to its cable systems via fiber, Comcast argues that this RSN is not subject to the program access rules and need not be made available to customers of their competitors. Cox offers its San Diego exclusive on the same basis.

In addition to outright withholding of programming, savvy cable operators also have resorted to more subtle, but equally anticompetitive, tactics. For example, in 2002, Comcast purchased AT&T, and in the process established a regional monopoly in Chicago similar to its dominance in Philadelphia. Comcast next purchased the rights to the Bulls, Blackhawks, Cubs and White Sox and launched its own sports network, CSN Chicago. When DIRECTV sought carriage of this critical programming, Comcast made it available to DIRECTV – but at double the price DIRECTV had been paying to carry these same games. Unwilling to forgo this must-have programming, DIRECTV had no choice but to accede to the cable operator’s demands.

The program access rules do not prohibit this kind of behavior so long as the cable operator pays the same high price. But that restriction is of no concern to the cable operator because even inflated payments are simply a transfer of money from one division of the company to another.

Again, unlike the NFL Sunday Ticket, cable operators have used their market share and their ownership of sports teams and regional sports networks to artificially inflate the price of their RSNs. If DIRECTV doesn’t pay the higher prices, the cable operator gets a de facto exclusive for the channel. If, on the other hand, DIRECTV pays the artificially high price, the cable operator extracts a supra-competitive rate and drives up DIRECTV’s costs. This, in turn, makes it more difficult for DIRECTV to compete on price. Either way, the cable operator wins – and consumers lose. And the goals of the program access rules are subverted.

* * *

You have called this hearing today to look at whether consumers are the winners when it comes to competition in sports programming and broadcasting. The answer is simple. When competitive packages of out-of-market games are available in a fair and open bidding process, consumers clearly benefit. As the program access rules envision, consumers get an option of competitive alternatives with differentiated programming, as each provider in the market strives to provide innovative programming and service to its customers. When the incumbent provider, however, uses its entrenched market power to subvert the program access provisions by depriving consumers of the right to root for their home teams, and increasing the cost of subscribing to an alternative provider, consumers lose.

Congress, therefore, should not impose legislation that restricts fair choice, but should act steadfastly to ensure that the cable providers don’t use their market power to artificially limit choice and raise prices. DIRECTV is eager to work with Congress to ensure that the vision of the program access rules is fulfilled by closing the terrestrial loophole. And DIRECTV urges this Committee to consider investigating the anti-trust concerns raised by the cable industry’s abuses of its market power.

Full testimony here (http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2440&wit_id=5842)

watermock

11-16-2006, 03:17 PM

Your puppeting NFL and Direct TV talking heads idiot.

Having the rights to broadcast an MLB game is much diffrerent...I doubt that completely exclusive rights.

Cox Communications offers its Channel 4 San Diego with exclusive rights to San Diego Padres games only to cable operators. So San Diego sports fans cannot watch their favorite team unless they subscribe to cable.

It says operators...I'm fairly sure that ESPN or NBC or other networks can carry Phillie baseball.

Your leting talking head lawyers for the NFL and Direct TV defend their monopoly. Brilliant.

When competitive packages of out-of-market games are available in a fair and open bidding process, consumers clearly benefit.

Complete lawyerspeak. The fact Directv won the bidding doesn't eliminate the monopoly whatsoever.

You just posted two long statements by the oligopoly of the two biggest players involved. Congratulations. Of course they are going to bring in talking heads.

That changes nothing.

There is no "competitive package" of out of market games whatsoever.

There is no "compeditive package" of NFL network.

As far as the MERGER ATTEMPT it wasn't covered much at all. The fact of the matter it was proven to be anti-trust.

This Directv deal should be as well, but Murdoch knows how to grease the wheels...sounds like he's jumping ship tho, which is fine with me.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 03:21 PM

Your puppeting NFL and Direct TV talking heads idiot.I'm posting testimony from the Senate hearings, can you dispute any facts they site you drunken chicken farmer?

A comparison of the differences between The Sunday Ticket and kinds of anticompetitive arrangements in which the incumbent cable operators have engaged with respect to regional sports exemplifies this point. One key difference is that DIRECTV obtained rights to The NFL Sunday Ticket in a fair and open marketplace. DIRECTV, a competitor without market power (only 15% market share nationwide) bid in the open market for this package of out of market NFL games by negotiating with an unaffiliated provider to obtain these rights. Indeed, the most recent bidding process was open to DIRECTV’s cable competitors as well.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 03:36 PM

Even Time/Warner wants NO Congressional action.
Hearing testimony continued...

-----------------------------------------------------
TESTIMONY OF LANDEL C. HOBBS
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER TIME WARNER CABLE
COMPETITION IN SPORTS PROGRAMMING AND BROADCASTING: ARE CONSUMERS WINNING?
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE
WASHINGTON, DC
November 14, 2006

snip....

Consumers who enjoy sports programming clearly are winning in the sense that there is more sports programming available to television viewers than ever before. In addition to sports programming that continues to be available on traditional broadcast channels, there is also a staggering amount and variety of sports programming available to cable and satellite subscribers through services such as ESPN, TNT and Versus (formerly Outdoor Life), as well as regional and specialized sports channels. And the Internet continues to change everything. Sports are no exception, with more and more sports programming becoming available through Internet distribution every day.

Despite these positive developments, in important ways the proliferation of sports programming is not always beneficial for consumers who value sports – or for consumers generally. In particular, Time Warner Cable has been monitoring, and trying to deal with, two trends over the last several years.
The first trend is the spiraling rise in costs. These cost increases mark every level of the sports food chain, from the high and constantly increasing salaries provided to players to the ever-rising prices for television rights charged by leagues to programmers and charged by programmers to distributors. Ultimately, of course, it is consumers who pay the bills.

The second trend is the ever-increasing fragmentation of television sports rights. This includes not only the continuing division of rights among various programming services, but also the proliferation of channels devoted to, and often largely owned by, individual teams. This slicing and dicing of the rights has unfortunately added to the increases in costs that consumers are being asked to bear.
----------------------------------------------

In closing, let me add one final thought. Government should be especially wary of the claims of some companies that are quick to call for government intervention when it would restrict their competitors, but vehemently oppose such regulation when it would apply to them. Time Warner Cable has been steadfast in its view that the marketplace is the best regulator, and that the marketplace functions best when any truly necessary government intrusion – absent special circumstances – applies equally to all players.

Full testimony here (http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2440&wit_id=5843)

watermock

11-16-2006, 03:38 PM

I never said Directv didn't bid on it...I questioned whether the NFL network did.

Also, it was traditional by the FCC to have two providers for such a service AT A MINIMUM.

watermock

11-16-2006, 03:41 PM

Government should be especially wary of the claims of some companies that are quick to call for government intervention when it would restrict their competitors, but vehemently oppose such regulation when it would apply to them.

Do you comprehend that comment?

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 03:43 PM

I never said Directv didn't bid on it...I questioned whether the NFL network did.

Also, it was traditional by the FCC to have two providers for such a service AT A MINIMUM.
Why are you acting like the Majik man. Once again, the NFL Network IS available to EVERY cable and satellite operator in the country.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 03:45 PM

Do you comprehend that comment?
LOL
You asking me if I comprehend what I read? ROFL!

watermock

11-16-2006, 03:47 PM

Do you understand you posted from the NFL and Directv? Moron.

The comment from Time Warner was accurate.

Bring up how the NFL Network bid on the thursday night rights again. You seem to have avoided that. I never said Directv didn't win the bid, I said that traditionally, there are two providers, and certainly at least put on general cable.

I say there is a scheme to make people get Directv or that channel would allready be on general cable.

I don't really care tremendously, I have gotten every Bronco game, but a prime time that would only be available on one provider?

Whatever.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 04:08 PM

:kiddingme

Can someone less drunk please try to explain why both networks dont have a doubleheader each sunday. It seems like it would generate a whole bunch more revenue.
I don't know for sure but I know networks sometimes in the past had programming commitments that they cover too, golf, tennis, etc..., maybe not so much these days though.

Here's some more info......

---------------------------------------------------------
The NFL imposes several television and blackout policies to maximize TV ratings and to ensure that stadiums are filled and sold out.

In 2006, CBS announced it would air only 3 games per week in high definition. The move created some outrage and animosity towards CBS, along with accusations of the network being "cheap."[15] FOX, NBC, and ESPN air all of their NFL games in high definition. See main article: NFL on CBS HDTV Controversy

Sunday regional coverage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_on_television)

Except for Monday Night Football, Sunday Night Football, games aired on the NFL Network, and other selected contests, most of the regular season games are regionally televised on Sunday afternoon by CBS and FOX. In other words, each game is only broadcasted to certain media markets in the United States instead of the entire country.

Normally, all media markets receive three games during each Sunday of the regular season: two games by the television network (either CBS or FOX) showing the "doubleheader", and one single game by the network showing the single game. The network with the doubleheader televises one game in the "early" time slot (1 p.m. ET/10 a.m. PT) and the other game in the "late" time slot (4:15 ET/1:15 p.m. PT). The network with the single game is also assigned contests in both the early and late time slot, but can only show one game in each market. Because of that, the single game network airs the late time slot games ten minutes earlier at 4:05 ET/1:05 p.m. PT.

The designated "doubleheader" network for each Sunday is determined by the league when it creates the regular season schedule, but it is generally roughly split equally between CBS and FOX. In determining this selection, the NFL has traditionally honored the networks' other major broadcasting commitments. For the past few decades, the league has always let CBS be the single game network during the week it televises the Men's U.S. Open Tennis final at 4:05 p.m. ET around the country. In recent years, this has fallen on the first week of the season; prior to 2001, the Men's final fell during the second weekend of the NFL season when the league opened the year on Labor Day Weekend. The NFL also lets FOX (and prior to 1998, NBC) have the single game during the Sunday in mid-October when it broadcasts Major League Baseball's League Championship Series across the county during the "late" time slot (with the other LCS having a game on Sunday night). This will likely end in 2007, as TBS and FOX will each televise one LCS per season. Thus, fewer LCS games are likely to be played in the afternoon.

Starting in the 2006 NFL season, the league modified the doubleheader format. Both CBS and FOX are given eight total doubleheaders during the first sixteen weeks of the regular season. However, both networks will air doubleheaders in the last week of the season to guarantee national coverage of contests with playoff implications (excluding the markets guaranteed their local teams).

Which games get shown in what particular markets are determined by the following factors: First, each home team's "primary media market", the market in which the team is physically located, must televise all of the games involving the local team, provided that home games are sold out (or else, they are subject to blackout, see below). In addition, the league also designates "secondary markets", media markets adjoining primary markets, that are also required to show the local team. Generally, these secondary markets must show the road games, but are not obligated to show the designated team's home games. Their decision on whether to show home games typically depends on whether or not the NFL-designated local team is perceived to be the most popular in the market.

In all other markets, the networks are the sole arbiters of what game gets shown where. However, they usually make their decisions after consulting with all of their local affiliates.

During the afternoon, CBS and FOX may switch a media market's game to a more competitive one, particularly when a contest becomes one-sided. For this to happen, one of the teams must be ahead by at least 18 points in the second half.

However, due to the incident involving the Heidi Game, a primary media market must show its local team's game in its entirety. Furthermore, if the local team's game is in the late time slot on the doubleheader network, the primary market may be required to switch coverage from the early game to the start of the late game regardless of how long the first game still is, so that the local team's contest can be shown in its entirety. This is usually accompanied by an apology that the NFL's TV contract does not allow them to show any more of the early game live. Of course, the network may show highlights as soon as they happen.

For this reason, the New York Giants and New York Jets are never scheduled on the same network on the same day because they both share the same primary media market. The San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders are also never scheduled on the same network on the same day either. Otherwise, the networks could theoretically have to cut away from one team's game to show the other team. In general, the league never schedules the Giants and the Jets to play their games at the same time (unless they play each other). Likewise for the 49ers and the Raiders.[16] The Washington Redskins and Baltimore Ravens are served by separate media markets, and so they can play at the same time (and if at home, viewers in that team's market will only see that game).

Billy Clyde Puckett

11-16-2006, 04:46 PM

Even Time/Warner wants NO Congressional action.
[/URL]

Believe me -that is true. Cable companies don't want any government intervention in their business. They are very independent minded folk. That's why it took them so long to get into the phone business - they didn't want to be exposed to the regulation of that industry.

Bronco_Beerslug

11-16-2006, 05:12 PM

Bring up how the NFL Network bid on the thursday night rights again. You seem to have avoided that.

How dense can one individual be?

Tredici

11-17-2006, 01:07 AM

:kiddingme

Can someone less drunk please try to explain why both networks dont have a doubleheader each sunday. It seems like it would generate a whole bunch more revenue.

What is considered the "local" market is never challenged with another game in the same time slot. For instance in the Denver area if the Broncos play in the morning the double header will be in the afternoon. Or if the Broncos play in the afternoon the double is in the morning slot.

How it's determined what is some of the country's "local team" I've never known. Region is one way.

Since the Ticket now allows you to watch 8 games at once it seems a little silly. But even they don't show the "local". That is always on the network affliate. Supposedly it has to do with the area sponsors and their advertising. But hell, since there is nothing local anymore I don't see why a beer or Target ad has to come from a certain locale.

Most of this stuff has become so arbitrary I don't know why it continues to be perpetuated.

freak6

11-17-2006, 02:05 AM

Madden 07 on PS2 sucked, and so does Time Warner.

24champ

11-17-2006, 02:42 AM

Madden 07 on PS2 sucked, and so does Time Warner.

Time Warner sucks balls.

Natedogg

11-18-2006, 01:13 PM

What is considered the "local" market is never challenged with another game in the same time slot. For instance in the Denver area if the Broncos play in the morning the double header will be in the afternoon. Or if the Broncos play in the afternoon the double is in the morning slot.

How it's determined what is some of the country's "local team" I've never known. Region is one way.

Since the Ticket now allows you to watch 8 games at once it seems a little silly. But even they don't show the "local". That is always on the network affliate. Supposedly it has to do with the area sponsors and their advertising. But hell, since there is nothing local anymore I don't see why a beer or Target ad has to come from a certain locale.

Most of this stuff has become so arbitrary I don't know why it continues to be perpetuated.

Interesting. So that means that according to this chart posted at gibblernation there were only two sunday day games broadcast in Colorado (one morning, one afternoon)?? Can someone living there confirm this? "Other commitments" aside, I have no idea why cbs, fox, and the nfl can't provide a forth sunday day game. It pisses me! I have to use the link at the bottom of my post to get the games, anyway though.

The schedule I'm talking about is here: http://www.gribblenation.net/nflmaps/ shows

watermock

11-18-2006, 01:30 PM

Could you post that in Russian so we can all understand it please?

Natedogg

11-18-2006, 01:48 PM

Could you post that in Russian so we can all understand it please?

Ты выпитый идиот! хуй твою мать!

Did you get that?