# Pats-Giants now available NATIONWIDE on CBS/NBC/NFLN



## jtcrusader

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3169075



> NEW YORK -- The New England Patriots' shot at history Saturday night will be available for every household in the country with a television after months of wrangling.
> 
> The game against the New York Giants, in which the Patriots could become the first NFL team to go 16-0 in the regular season, was originally scheduled to be shown only on the NFL Network, which is available in fewer than 40 percent of the nation's homes with TVs.
> 
> But the league announced Wednesday that the NFL Network feed will be simulcast on NBC and CBS. It's a major concession by league officials, who repeatedly said they would not show the game anywhere but the NFL Network. The NFL had faced mounting pressure from politicians in recent weeks to make the game available to more viewers.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

_BRING IT!!!_


----------



## Steve Mehs

:up: :up:

YES!

Que Tom Petty's song with a word change. 'Well they did back down'


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Since this makes no difference to DirecTV...

Since NFL Network is carried in the base package.
Thread moved to the sports forum.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Now that it is moved..

IMHO... NFL Network screwed the pooch on this one.

I understand that is monumental, and an all time record that could be set.
But... in the local markets... no problem.... And I think they were already going to be broadcasted in the local DMA's for those teams

(as that is what they did for the Bears game a few weeks ago on Thursday night).

Maybe if they aired the game on a 1hr delay or something on CBS/NBC.

But I think they showed a major whole in their armor with this...


----------



## Stuart Sweet

On the contrary I must respectfully disagree. This is an opportunity for a lot of free press for NFL Network, and a historic moment in the history of football that NFL Network is graciously permitting the nation to experience together.


----------



## John W

Stuart Sweet said:


> On the contrary I must respectfully disagree. This is an opportunity for a lot of free press for NFL Network, and a historic moment in the history of football that NFL Network is graciously permitting the nation to experience together.


I agree. And, the entire country can also watch the end of this charade January 20, 2008 on CBS.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

As the local sports reports commented:

It could be REALLY BAD for NFL Network....

As the entire country is now going to see how bad Gumble is as a play-by-play guy.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Earl Bonovich said:


> As the entire country is now going to see how bad Gumble is as a play-by-play guy.


I respect that Mr. Gumbel didn't critique my on-the-job performance the one time he had a chance to, but beyond that I can't say that I am particularly inspired to praise his on-the-job performance either.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Stuart Sweet said:


> I respect that Mr. Gumbel didn't critique my on-the-job performance the one time he had a chance to, but beyond that I can't say that I am particularly inspired to praise his on-the-job performance either.


Oh... now that he has two half-seasons in....

I think it is fair to critique him...


----------



## Steve Mehs

Stuart Sweet said:


> On the contrary I must respectfully disagree. This is an opportunity for a lot of free press for NFL Network, and a historic moment in the history of football that NFL Network is graciously permitting the nation to experience together.


Save the BS. Some how 'graciously permitting the nation to experience together' does not coincide with 'The NFL had faced mounting pressure from politicians in recent weeks to make the game available to more viewers.'

They did it because they felt like they had to not because they wanted to. The NFL broke down here, and I think it speaks volumes to what would happen if the NFL were to ever put a post season games on the NFL Network like all the cable haters want the NFL to do.

It's a very small victory, but it's nice to see the NFL get bit in the ass here.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

I do think they bent a bit... and it might harm their position with the cable-co's....

But I think it has not as much do to politician pressure, then possible public opinion.... we also don't know how much CBS and NBC wrote checks for the right to carry these channels (or do we).
Where is FOX and ABC ?

They didn't bend when all that pressure was there a few weeks ago for Super Bowl 42.75 (Green Bay and Dallas)

I know when the Bears were on NFL network... the local affilate WCIU (Which is a MyNetwork), cut a check for $750,000


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Steve Mehs said:


> Save the BS.
> 
> (...)
> 
> It's a very small victory, but it's nice to see the NFL get bit in the ass here.


OK, Steve, tell me how you really feel.


----------



## Steve Mehs

You all know how I feel. I love football and I love the NFL, but the NFL has been completely unreasonable and hostile with cable companies and they deserve to get knocked down a bit. The NFL Network didn't do anyone a favor here, so stop acting like they did.


----------



## kenn157

Now I have 3 networks to watch it on! LOL! WCVB(ABC) Boston CBS and NBC. I wonder if the NFL Network will only have Collinsworth and Bryant announce or will each NEtwork have their own. Simms/Nance Madden/Michaels


----------



## Lord Vader

Earl Bonovich said:


> As the local sports reports commented:
> 
> It could be REALLY BAD for NFL Network....
> 
> As the entire country is now going to see how bad Gumble is as a play-by-play guy.


Well, if that gets his sorry butt fired, I'm all for it!


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Steve Mehs said:


> You all know how I feel. I love football and I love the NFL, but the NFL has been completely unreasonable and hostile with cable companies and they deserve to get knocked down a bit. The NFL Network didn't do anyone a favor here, so stop acting like they did.


And the Cable Companies are being completely REASONALBE and NICE with NFL Network?

COMCAST is doing the same thing with the Big Ten Network...

Seems that the little cable-companies managed to get along with the content providers....

But the big guys bump heads.....

It's a two way street... and I am sure both entities involved are sticking to their guns.... but at the end of the day.... NFL owns the content, and they are the ones that are legally able to control it's licensing and it's broadcast.

And with DirecTV, DishNetwork, and other carriers already broadcasting their channel.... they have avenues for their product to get out there...


----------



## Lord Vader

Steve Mehs said:


> Save the BS. Some how 'graciously permitting the nation to experience together' does not coincide with 'The NFL had faced mounting pressure from politicians in recent weeks to make the game available to more viewers.'


Memo to Congress: stay the bleep out of this! Let the market dictate things. Haven't you blowhards got anything better to do than whine, *****, and threaten the NFL about their TV deals?!? There are more pressing issues for our Congressmen and Senators to worry about. The NFL's TV deal is not one of them!


----------



## Earl Bonovich

kenn157 said:


> Now I have 3 networks to watch it on! LOL! WCVB(ABC) Boston CBS and NBC. I wonder if the NFL Network will only have Collinsworth and Bryant announce or will each NEtwork have their own. Simms/Nance Madden/Michaels


It is the same broadcast on each network.

Each individual channel doesn't get to put their broadcast/team in there.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Lord Vader said:


> Memo to Congress: stay the bleep out of this! Let the market dictate things. Haven't you blowhards got anything better to do than whine, *****, and threaten the NFL about their TV deals?!? There are more pressing issues for our Congressmen and Senators to worry about. The NFL's TV deal is not one of them!


Congress has done alright by me. MLB Extra Innings is not a D* exclusive, history making football action is available to all. You won't find me complaining. Thank You US Congress. Now about that whole issue of NFL Sunday Ticket...


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Steve Mehs said:


> Congress has done alright by me. MLB Extra Innings is not a D* exclusive, history making football action is available to all. You won't find me complaining. Thank You US Congress. Now about that whole issue of NFL Sunday Ticket...


Again... I thik Congress has zero to do with this change.
If the Patriots were not going for 16-0... but say the AFC #1 seed...

There is no doubt that this would not have happened.

I do think NFL Network should have put it on a time delay... say 1 hour later.

If Congress wants to do something to help the consumers...
Have them eliminate the entire affiliate model....... where they control their DMA's and drastically waste resources that are available.
(Aka... how much content in the DirecTV data streams is repeated ?)


----------



## sigma1914

Why simulcast on 2 networks? IMO, they shouldn't of even allowed coverage outside of NY & Mass. Maybe since the NFL is feeling so giving, they'll donate whatever NBC & CBS paid to help the retired players they're screwing over.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Of course there only reason this is an issues is becasue of the pats going for history. But how can you say 'Congress has zero to do with this change' when it states directly in the article 'The NFL had faced mounting pressure from politicians in recent weeks to make the game available to more viewers'.


----------



## Lord Vader

Steve Mehs said:


> Congress has done alright by me. MLB Extra Innings is not a D* exclusive, history making football action is available to all. You won't find me complaining. Thank You US Congress. Now about that whole issue of NFL Sunday Ticket...


Just because your satisfied with the end result of this doesn't make Congress's actions right; they're not. Congress has NO right to get involved with what is nothing but a BUSINESS decision. Good or bad, the decision is a business one between the NFL and the cable companies and related parties. Just because a few Members of Congress get ticked that it won't be viewable in their neck of the woods--now it is, of course--they huff and puff and threaten the NFL.

That's unacceptable and petty.



> But how can you say 'Congress has zero to do with this change' when it states directly in the article 'The NFL had faced mounting pressure from politicians in recent weeks to make the game available to more viewers'.


So? Who cares? Just because Congress whines and threatens doesn't mean they should have anything to do with it. Please tell me _what substantive federal issue is involved._ And using the Constitution's Commerce Clause won't cut it, because that's not what that section deals with.


----------



## say-what

All this means to me is 2 less channels carrying alternative programming. I already have the NFL Network and had no intention of watching this game - don't like the Pats or Giants and the outcome of this game is not going to change the world, the outcome of the Saints season or my life......


----------



## Steve Mehs

Earl Bonovich said:


> And the Cable Companies are being completely REASONALBE and NICE with NFL Network?
> 
> COMCAST is doing the same thing with the Big Ten Network...
> 
> Seems that the little cable-companies managed to get along with the content providers....
> 
> But the big guys bump heads.....
> 
> It's a two way street... and I am sure both entities involved are sticking to their guns.... but at the end of the day.... NFL owns the content, and they are the ones that are legally able to control it's licensing and it's broadcast.
> 
> And with DirecTV, DishNetwork, and other carriers already broadcasting their channel.... they have avenues for their product to get out there...


Putting the NFL Network in a specialty Sports Tier is not an unreasonable thing. I don't see the NBA whining that NBA TV is in the Sports Package on E* and D*. Now if Viacom or Time Warner wanted to include Showtime or HBO in basic packages on satellite, wow-we what an uproar there'd be here.

This really means nothing. It's a minor blow to the NFL, but it is in no way a victory or the cable companies. The NFL will hold firm, Time Warner will hold firm. I WOULD be on the NFLs side here if I could get a definition of basic package. If by basic package that means analog, there is no way I'll support the NFL here. The NFL Network should be available with a subscription to digital cable, or in an add on Sports Tier, which by default means it will be digital only.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Lord Vader said:


> Just because your satisfied with the end result of this doesn't make Congress's actions right; they're not. Congress has NO right to get involved with what is nothing but a BUSINESS decision. Good or bad, the decision is a business one between the NFL and the cable companies and related parties. Just because a few Members of Congress get ticked that it won't be viewable in their neck of the woods--now it is, of course--they huff and puff and threaten the NFL.
> 
> That's unacceptable and petty.
> 
> So? Who cares? Just because Congress whines and threatens doesn't mean they should have anything to do with it. Please tell me _what substantive federal issue is involved._ And using the Constitution's Commerce Clause won't cut it, because that's not what that section deals with.


May be unacceptable and petty but I don't care. It doesn't affect you so I don't see what your so up in arms about. I make out here. Three cheers for the US Congress! *Hiphip Hoory* *Hiphip Hoory* *Hiphip Hoory* :goodjob:


----------



## joed32

Says the cable guy.


----------



## say-what

Steve Mehs said:


> Putting the NFL Network in a specialty Sports Tier is not an unreasonable thing. I don't see the NBA whining that NBA TV is in the Sports Package on E* and D*.


When NBATV launched, these sports tiers were the new thing and they were happy to launch this way. When their contracts come up for renewal, the NBA intends to make a push to get into wider distributed packages.


----------



## Lord Vader

Steve Mehs said:


> May be unacceptable and petty but I don't care. It doesn't affect you so I don't see what your so up in arms about. I make out here. Three cheers for the US Congress! *Hiphip Hoory* *Hiphip Hoory* *Hiphip Hoory* :goodjob:


So using your ridiculous logic, if Congress passed a law that mandated DirecTV couldn't charge more than $50/month for their top-of-the-line package, you'd be all for it. After all, you would "make out" there, too. 

Ridiculous.

Oh, and it sure does affect me--and every other American taxpayer. Every time Congress does something like this it ends up affecting us, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. Furthermore, if Congress's actions like this are left unchecked, things will only get worse.


----------



## Steve Mehs

> So using your ridiculous logic, if Congress passed a law that mandated DirecTV couldn't charge more than $50/month for their top-of-the-line package, you'd be all for it. After all, you would "make out" there, too.


I honestly don't really care, I'm not a D* subscriber, I don't see how I'd benefit or lose.



> Oh, and it sure does affect me--and every other American taxpayer. Every time Congress does something like this it ends up affecting us, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. Furthermore, if Congress's actions like this are left unchecked, things will only get worse.


Well then if it helps, thank you. Your tax money which pays the salaries of those that spoke up is greatly appreciated by me.


----------



## Tom Robertson

For me, I'm good either way, I have NFL Network. 
For NFL Network, I guess I'll leave that up to the owners. They make more than I do, so I'll let them fight it out.
For Congressmen, I'd rather they didn't waste my tax money on this. Seems like we have more pressing things for them to spend time with. Or to spend their political capital upon.
For the rest of us, I'm sorry for Bryant Gumble to be on such a large stage in this role. I have nothing personally against him, in fact I like him in other roles. This doesn't seem to be where his gifts and skills lie.

Happy Holidays!
Tom


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Steve Mehs said:


> Of course there only reason this is an issues is becasue of the pats going for history. But how can you say 'Congress has zero to do with this change' when it states directly in the article 'The NFL had faced mounting pressure from politicians in recent weeks to make the game available to more viewers'.


"Congress" and politians are two very different things.

If some politians threated to do something.... they may or may not have been able to get it done.

If Congress as the group of elected people did something about, that is very very different.

I think you could have gotten similar results if Coors Brewing company threated to pull their advertising if it wasn't done for the game.


----------



## DCSholtis

Lord Vader said:


> Memo to Congress: stay the bleep out of this! Let the market dictate things. Haven't you blowhards got anything better to do than whine, *****, and threaten the NFL about their TV deals?!? There are more pressing issues for our Congressmen and Senators to worry about. The NFL's TV deal is not one of them!


I agree completely. Now you have those 2 incompetent Senators....well 3 if you include Kerry now crowing about their so called "victory". In fact one of em, the guy from VT is already planning on meeting the commish at the end of the month to see how many more concessions he can get for his cable buddies.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Steve Mehs said:


> Putting the NFL Network in a specialty Sports Tier is not an unreasonable thing. I don't see the NBA whining that NBA TV is in the Sports Package on E* and D*. Now if Viacom or Time Warner wanted to include Showtime or HBO in basic packages on satellite, wow-we what an uproar there'd be here.


I am sure that it could be in a specialty sports tier... but at what rate?
The "net" on what these carriers want for their content will stay pretty consistant.

If it is in the base package... it will be one rate.
If it is in the extended tiers... it most certainly be at more expensive rate.

But I would bet... that the carriers... would want it at the same rate as teh base package, so they don't have to increase the costs of the extended sports packages... which are probably one of their biggest profit margins.

Vs the base packages, which are probably a lot more closer to a break even point....

And it is a lot more PR friendly to raise the extended package price, then the base package price... as you then have given them "options".

But yet some channels like BTN and NFL Network, would not be able to prove their worth as a channel... or fail as a channel... when being introduced in a special tier.

If ESPN can push themselves into the base packages... why not some of the other ones?


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Steve Mehs said:


> I honestly don't really care, I'm not a D* subscriber, I don't see how I'd benefit or lose.


Honestly....

As an NFL fan... you may see the NFL Network fold in the long run...
Which means... amongst other things... one less game available to the semi-national stage... and all the other things the NFL Network brings to the table.

So "today" it is just a small hole in the bucket... but that could end up being something bigger in time to come. (like when the TV contract negotiations come up).


----------



## Lord Vader

DCSholtis said:


> I agree completely. Now you have those 2 incompetent Senators....well 3 if you include Kerry now crowing about their so called "victory". In fact one of em, the guy from VT is already planning on meeting the commish at the end of the month to see how many more concessions he can get for his cable buddies.


And what a bunch of hypocrites they are, too. Case in point: why don't people go after Senator Arlen Specter, who singlehandedly is responsible for that ridiculous terrestrial loophole regarding Comcast and their decision to not let Comcast Philladelphia be available to anyone. Guess who was responsible for that law, a law that benefitted one of his biggest campaign contributors, Comcast? Yup. Surprise, surprise--Senator Specter.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Let us take care with the political discussions. We've done a great job so far, thank you.

Happy Holidays!
Tom


----------



## Lord Vader

I don't think this is political per se, Tom. It has nothing to do with Republican v. Democrat or the usual politics; rather, it's relevant in terms of why the NFL might have caved in this matter--due to Congress as a body meddling in things that ought not concern them. That's what I'm focusing on at least.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

John W said:


> I agree. And, the entire country can also watch the end of this charade January 20, 2008 on CBS.


So just what is going to happen on 1/20/2008 on CBS?


----------



## smiddy

This game will not be shown in the smiddy household either way...


----------



## SteinyD

Do we know if this simulcast will include both NFL Network standard and HD programming to CBS and NBC HD programming? I still have the eliptic 3 way dish and only get NFL Network HD when carried on channel 94/95.

Thanks!


----------



## Steve Mehs

Earl Bonovich said:


> I am sure that it could be in a specialty sports tier... but at what rate?
> The "net" on what these carriers want for their content will stay pretty consistant.
> 
> If it is in the base package... it will be one rate.
> If it is in the extended tiers... it most certainly be at more expensive rate.
> 
> But I would bet... that the carriers... would want it at the same rate as teh base package, so they don't have to increase the costs of the extended sports packages... which are probably one of their biggest profit margins.
> 
> Vs the base packages, which are probably a lot more closer to a break even point....
> 
> And it is a lot more PR friendly to raise the extended package price, then the base package price... as you then have given them "options".
> 
> But yet some channels like BTN and NFL Network, would not be able to prove their worth as a channel... or fail as a channel... when being introduced in a special tier.
> 
> If ESPN can push themselves into the base packages... why not some of the other ones?


As much as ESPN has drifted away from sports, they are a well established sports network. If the NFL Network folds (which I doubt they will) then so be it. Life existed before the NFL Network, life will exist after it. If they can't get the number of eyeballs they need to survive that's on them. Sports Tier pricing, I have no idea what TW pays each of the programming providers, but consumers are changed a whole $1.95/month here for the Sports Tier which includes 8 channels (including NBA TV and the NHL Network) and the Sorts Tier is included at no additional change for those with Triple Play packages. Add the NFL Network and raise it to $2.95/month I say.


----------



## SamC

So, those of us who are customers of DirecTV, DISH and the honest minority of cable companies that SERVE their customers will be getting our refund checks when?


----------



## John W

HDMe said:


> So just what is going to happen on 1/20/2008 on CBS?


The Indianapolis Colts are going to repeat as American Football Conference Champions.


----------



## Steve Mehs

John W said:


> The Indianapolis Colts are going to repeat as American Football Conference Champions.


:lol:


----------



## John W

SamC said:


> So, those of us who are customers of DirecTV, DISH and the honest minority of cable companies that SERVE their customers will be getting our refund checks when?


Good question. If Charlie Ergen, the cheapest ******* coming and going, can make a deal with these folks everybody should be able to.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Contrary to popular belief, it is CONGRESS and the PRESIDENT that have allowed the NFL to have their MONOPOLY. Therefore, by threatening to pull the limited anti-trust exemption the NFL was given by CONGRESS and the PRESIDENT, it has opened up a can of worms.

As I've said on this forum and elsewhere, I really don't like the fact that Senator from Pennsylvania, in the pocket of Comcast, doesn't turn that eye to the lack of distribution of Comcast Sports Net Philadelphia.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

John W said:


> The Indianapolis Colts are going to repeat as American Football Conference Champions.


While I am rooting for the Colts, I honestly don't believe they will beat the Pats unless they get Marvin Harrison back and he is able to go at full speed.

I believe this year's Colts would have been better than last year's IF everyone had stayed healthy all year. Now I have my doubts.

By all rights it *should* be New England vs Indy for the AFC... but I'm not sure I would bet against the Jaguars for a possible upset in the right conditions (say at New England in a windy game).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

As for the NFL network... I'm still a little confused at how they make more money for themselves with their own network than they would by selling those games to another network.

I also find it a little amusing that so many people complain about the NFL network not being accessible to everyone... when Monday Night Football went from OTA to cable/satellite only a couple of years back. IF we truly applied fairness to everyone, then ESPN wouldn't have games either and everything would be on an OTA-available network.


----------



## rkr0923

Go GIANTS!


----------



## Newshawk

Steve Mehs said:


> You all know how I feel. I love football and I love the NFL, but the NFL has been completely unreasonable and hostile with cable companies and they deserve to get knocked down a bit. The NFL Network didn't do anyone a favor here, so stop acting like they did.


The NFL is doing to cable exactly what Comcra... er, Comcast has honed to a fine point, so it's just a case of turnabout is fair play. Of course, if you're the Roberts family, "fair play" is having the playing field tilted entirely in your favor.

No, I'm not bitter... not one bit.


----------



## Lord Vader

Greg Bimson said:


> Contrary to popular belief, it is CONGRESS and the PRESIDENT that have allowed the NFL to have their MONOPOLY. Therefore, by threatening to pull the limited anti-trust exemption the NFL was given by CONGRESS and the PRESIDENT, it has opened up a can of worms.
> 
> As I've said on this forum and elsewhere, I really don't like the fact that Senator from Pennsylvania, in the pocket of Comcast, doesn't turn that eye to the lack of distribution of Comcast Sports Net Philadelphia.


Except that that monopoly to which you refer, illustrated best via Major League Baseball and its anti-trust exemption, is primarily designed to protect each league as a unique leage, per se. It's really not designed to focus on a particular league's television contracts.

Of course, Congress does have the power--unfortunately--to threaten or take away certain privileges if they want to get their way in the TV coverage arena.


----------



## DCSholtis

SteinyD said:


> Do we know if this simulcast will include both NFL Network standard and HD programming to CBS and NBC HD programming? I still have the eliptic 3 way dish and only get NFL Network HD when carried on channel 94/95.
> 
> Thanks!


Hopefully the NFL Network was able to still screw the cable companies/Comcrap and deny them the HD feed. :lol:


----------



## Greg Bimson

Lord Vader said:


> Except that that monopoly to which you refer, illustrated best via Major League Baseball and its anti-trust exemption, is primarily designed to protect each league as a unique leage, per se. It's really not designed to focus on a particular league's television contracts.


There was legislation passed in 1961 to allow a league to shop its entire slate of games to the highest bidder. The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 allowed a league to pool those games and sell them. Background information:


> At the beginning of the 1960s, the networks were pressed to fill viewer appetites for pro football; the newly formed American Football League (AFL) provided a perfect opportunity to fill this void.(note 19) In what is considered the first big network contract for regular-season sports,(note 20) the AFL signed a league-wide television contract with the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) for the league's first full schedule of games in 1960.(note 21) Not to be outdone by its new rival, the NFL sold a pooled package of its teams' broadcast rights to CBS for the 1961 season.(note 22) These pooled sales agreements soon caught the attention of the Justice Department and in 1961 were found to violate antitrust law.(note 23) The NFL then went to the ultimate rule-making committee for relief-Congress. It took just seventy-two days for Congress to respond to the NFL's request by enacting the Sports Broadcasting Act (Act).(note 24)


Then, when the AFL-NFL merger was announced, the leagues needed approval by getting an exemption from anti-trust law. Of course, this was granted. Among one of the stipulations of this exemption is that no Friday or Saturday night games can be shown nationally between Labor Day and Thanksgiving.

And that is why there is so much oversight by the government.


----------



## twistedT

Let's step back and look at this.... I'm not sure Political pressure has much to do with the nationwide broadcast. Maybe a little bit, but I think its more the almighty dollar. Pats games have been drawing record setting ratings which equals big dollars. I'm sure NBC and CBS are paying BIG bucks to broadcast the game. I think its a win win for the NFL network. I'm sure NFL networks ratings are way up and people are calling in and begging for the channel on cable. By letting everyone have the game across the country it makes the NFL network look like the good guys.


----------



## 2Guysfootball

Two good things will come out of this 
1. Everyone gets to see either a great moment or The best upset in Sports History
2. Gumble will not be a issue to complain about next year once the whole nation hears him call Eli Payton and Tom Brady Jan Brady.

In the NE area for broadcasting reasons they were only going to show this game on channel 5 out of Boston I know all the RI station had interest in carrying the game but was told they were not in the Pats DMA.
I live close enough to Boston and have a fairly decent antenna and can get the most of the Boston station. But a good percent of the Patriots Fan base would have been left out in the cold had they not changes this.
Now I have four different channels to watch it on.

I wonder how many NFL Network promo Ads we are going to see during this game?


----------



## kenn157

Earl Bonovich said:


> It is the same broadcast on each network.
> 
> Each individual channel doesn't get to put their broadcast/team in there.


Oh thank goodness! Phil Simms/Giants.... If the Giants loose by 40 pts he'd make it sound like they won!:lol:


----------



## Steve Mehs

DCSholtis said:


> Hopefully the NFL Network was able to still screw the cable companies/Comcrap and deny them the HD feed. :lol:


Maybe in your fantasy world but, considering the game will be on over the air networks and cable companies just pick up what's broadcast, you can bet the game will be in HD on cable.


----------



## DCSholtis

How do you know that CBS and NBC will get the HD feed.....


----------



## Steve Mehs

Why wouldn't they? 

It's amazing how much the thought of cable viewers watching this game really gets to people here.


----------



## kenn157

GO PATS!!!!!


----------



## DCSholtis

Steve Mehs said:


> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> It's amazing how much the thought of cable viewers watching this game really gets to people here.


Think about it...when a game is on ESPN and the local affiliates simulcast the game do they have access to the HD feed?!! Nope. So why would NBC and CBS get it in this case. The only reason why this is an issue is because those in Congress cannot get LOS in the District and have to pig up on the cable.


----------



## Tom Robertson

My understanding is the locals do get the HD version from ESPN as needed, but I can double check with my dad.


----------



## Tom Robertson

2nd (and last) reminder. Political posts naming names in any form other than as a news item (from a news source) have been removed and this thread will be closed if any more appear. 

:backtotop

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Steve Mehs

DCSholtis said:


> Think about it...when a game is on ESPN and the local affiliates simulcast the game do they have access to the HD feed?!!


I would have no idea. This is the first year the Bills have been on ESPN in the past God knows how many years and I go to bed at 7:30.


----------



## Kheldar

Earl Bonovich said:


> It is the same broadcast on each network.
> 
> Each individual channel doesn't get to put their broadcast/team in there.


The press release would suggest that you are correct:


> CBS and NBC will carry the NFL Network feed of the game with BRYANT GUMBEL and CRIS COLLINSWORTH in the broadcast booth.


While it makes sense for ONE network to carry the game (after all, how many markets have only one of those two networks?), why both? Unless they allow multiple broadcast teams (maybe one that favors the Patriots and one that favors the Giants?), what is really the point?


----------



## Tom Robertson

My only guess is that by going from 1 network to 3, NFL can continue to hype the historical nature of the game, the decision to let others carry it, and let two networks pay for the rights. 

I wonder if the local stations that had previously bid for the rights to carry the games in the home areas are getting some form of refunds since the game is going national. I sure would be perturbed if I had bid a ton of money for exclusive rights to local broadcast only to have it negated.

Happy Holidays!
Tom


----------



## Lord Vader

Is there a way they can filter the feeds to simply eliminate Gumbel from the equation?


----------



## Tom Robertson

Lord Vader said:


> Is there a way they can filter the feeds to simply eliminate Gumbel from the equation?


How about if he gets another cold tomorrow!


----------



## Steve Mehs

Get Sirius and sync up the audio feed with what you see on TV. Using a DVR and a Sirius receiver with pause/rewind capabilities it's not too difficult. I do just that for Sabres hockey games that are on NBC.


----------



## smiddy

I ain't watching it and you can't make me.


----------



## Lord Vader

Tom Robertson said:


> How about if he gets another cold tomorrow!


As a Sith Lord, I can get away with saying I hope he gets a cold that proves fatal. :eek2: (at least until the football season's over)


----------



## Kheldar

Tom Robertson said:


> My only guess is that by going from 1 network to 3, NFL can continue to hype the historical nature of the game, the decision to let others carry it, and let two networks pay for the rights.


Good thought, but a New York Times article states:


> NBC and CBS will use the NFL Network's game production, including the announcers Cris Collinsworth and Bryant Gumbel. They will not pay an extra rights fee - together the networks pay the league a combined average yearly fee of $1.2 billion - and will divide revenues from selling 18 30-second commercials with local stations.


So the two networks are not paying anything for the rights, if the New York Times can be trusted :grin: .

Earlier in that same article, though, it states:


> The decision to have NBC and CBS give the NFL Network the exposure it has so far lacked came in the face of mounting Congressional pressure, a threat to examine the antitrust exemption the National Football League has to negotiate its television contracts.
> 
> "I think the pressure was one thing and that had an impact," said Pat Bowlen, the owner of the Denver Broncos. "But you look at the significance of the game, of New England possibly going undefeated, and we wanted it to be seen by the whole country."
> 
> Representative Joseph Courtney, Democrat of Connecticut, praised the decision by N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell to expand the game's availability. Without the simulcasts, tens of thousands of fans in the state - which has loyalties divided between the Patriot and the Giants - would not have seen the game.
> 
> "It was the right pressure point for Congress to step in and say to the N.F.L., 'You're a protected industry and you have to look out for the best interests of the fans,'" he said.
> 
> The NFL Network is available to 43 million cable and satellite subscribers, but it is not carried by major cable operators like Time Warner, Cablevision and Charter. Comcast carries the network only on its digital sports tier, which requires an extra fee.


So it looks like letting one of the networks carry the game was purely a political ploy. However, that still doesn't explain why TWO networks are simulcasting it.


----------



## Lord Vader

Not intending to get political here or to beat a dead horse, but aren't there more important issues for Congress to be involved in right now? Like the Bhutto assassination and its significance, the economy, the war, the budget, and more?


----------



## Tom Robertson

Kheldar said:


> Good thought, but a New York Times article states:
> 
> So the two networks are not paying anything for the rights, if the New York Times can be trusted :grin: .
> 
> Earlier in that same article, though, it states:
> 
> So it looks like letting one of the networks carry the game was purely a political ploy. However, that still doesn't explain why TWO networks are simulcasting it.


Interesting. Thanks for sharing that, I hadn't found that article.

So no new $$, unless NFL is charging higher rates for their ad sales.

Happy Holidays!
Tom


----------



## Mustang Dave

Lord Vader said:


> Not intending to get political here or to beat a dead horse, but aren't there more important issues for Congress to be involved in right now? Like the Bhutto assassination and its significance, the economy, the war, the budget, and more?


Naw, this game is more important then any of that. 

Besides, how much time do you think these TWO Senators actually spent on this? I am betting it was a 30 second cell phone call to an aid to draft a memo.

Sheesh, someone in congress actually does something that benefits millions of Americans (er ok football fans) and people want to condemn them for it.


----------



## Lord Vader

Mustang Dave said:


> Sheesh, someone in congress actually does something that benefits millions of Americans (er ok football fans) and people want to condemn them for it.


Except that the ends do not justify the means.


----------



## Mustang Dave

Lord Vader said:


> Except that the ends do not justify the means.


I am sure the millions of football fans that otherwise would not have been able to see this game will be thinking the same thing as they watch it. :lol:


----------



## Lord Vader

Indeed.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

What is curious is why FOX and ESPN were left out of the mix.

Many schools of thought here. ESPN could be out because that requires cable, and would still leave OTA people in the dark.. so going OTA covers everyone that would have missed the game.. but that doesn't explain why CBS and NBC but not FOX.

I believe NFL Network is 1080i, as is CBS and NBC.. so another school of thought is that FOX and ESPN (being 720p) were left out because there would be more work required to convert the NFL Network broadcast into a format those networks could provide to their affiliates.

My 2nd thought seems more likely to me... as I can't think of any other reason to pick just CBS and NBC for the multicast.


----------



## kenn157

HDMe said:


> What is curious is why FOX and ESPN were left out of the mix.
> 
> Many schools of thought here. ESPN could be out because that requires cable, and would still leave OTA people in the dark.. so going OTA covers everyone that would have missed the game.. but that doesn't explain why CBS and NBC but not FOX.
> 
> I believe NFL Network is 1080i, as is CBS and NBC.. so another school of thought is that FOX and ESPN (being 720p) were left out because there would be more work required to convert the NFL Network broadcast into a format those networks could provide to their affiliates.
> 
> My 2nd thought seems more likely to me... as I can't think of any other reason to pick just CBS and NBC for the multicast.


Also CBS and NBC broadcast in DD 5.1. NFL Doesnt and is that going to mean no fo rthe other two? Hmm.


----------



## carliii970

The odd part of this whole Cable vs. NFL situation regarding NFL Network is this: People with cable are now happy to be receiving the New England/Giants game for "free" this coming Saturday night. Congrats! But, some of these same people, as well as some politicians, are upset at the NFL because the NFL wants NFL Network to be a basic channel on cable. Meaning it would be available to everyone anyway if cable companies would do as the NFL wishes :eek2: 

The NFL wants NFL Network to be available to everyone and it would be if the cable companies would add the netwok as Directv and Dish have already. It's the cable companies who are refusing to do this. And Congress and some people are upset with the NFL? WTF? The cable companies are the ones refusing to put NFL Network on basic packages, not the NFL. 

I had cable for a long time becuase I couldn't get Directv in my apartment building. Did I complain? No. I simply made sure that when I finally bought my first house, I signed up with Directv. 

Lesson: If you really want the NFL Network and NFL Sunday Ticket, you know what to do.


----------



## Lord Vader

kenn157 said:


> Also CBS and NBC broadcast in DD 5.1. NFL Doesnt and is that going to mean no fo rthe other two? Hmm.


I don't know about you, but my NFL Network HD games have all been in DD5.1.


----------



## kenn157

Lord Vader said:


> I don't know about you, but my NFL Network HD games have all been in DD5.1.


Your lucky! CBS/NBC/FOX all but NFL just DD 2.0


----------



## Lord Vader

And you're watching it via an HR20? Strange. Check your AV unit to make sure your audio is set up properly. As I said above, all my NFL Network HD showings have been in DD5.1; however, last week's had a weird experience. While watching the game, suddenly the audio changed and my Onkyo 805 went from displaying "Dolby Digital" to Neural THX 7.1. Now, the latter audio format is darn good, but the switch was strange. It lasted for about 10 minutes when it switched back to DD5.1. The problem was in the transmission source, though, and not my AV.


----------



## kenn157

Lord Vader said:


> And you're watching it via an HR20? Strange. Check your AV unit to make sure your audio is set up properly. As I said above, all my NFL Network HD showings have been in DD5.1; however, last week's had a weird experience. While watching the game, suddenly the audio changed and my Onkyo 805 went from displaying "Dolby Digital" to Neural THX 7.1. Now, the latter audio format is darn good, but the switch was strange. It lasted for about 10 minutes when it switched back to DD5.1. The problem was in the transmission source, though, and not my AV.


The HR20 is on Dolbly cause I could be watching something on HBO or SHOW or whatever and when I go to NFL nuthin it been like since we got NFLHD a while back


----------



## kenn157

I have a Sony STR-DA5200ES via HDMI. The blue lite is on but not for NFL


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I've never seen NFL Network in 5.1. Are you sure you don't have your audio receiver set to process and "create" 5.1 from Dolby 2.0? That can be done with ProLogic and other sound processing so it seems like 5.1 but really isn't.


----------



## kenn157

HDMe said:


> I've never seen NFL Network in 5.1. Are you sure you don't have your audio receiver set to process and "create" 5.1 from Dolby 2.0? That can be done with ProLogic and other sound processing so it seems like 5.1 but really isn't.


I knew it wasn't in 5.1 Let's see if they upgrade for the BIG GAME! :lol:


----------



## stevecon

Now WCVB Channel 5 in Boston (ABC) is having "discussions" with the NFL, due to a contract issues over this game. It was agreed that WCVB would be the EXCLUSIVE Boston local to carry this game. WBZ (Channel 4 / NBC) and WHDH (Channel 7 / CBS) all expected to lose revenue on this day to WCVB (which of course expected to hit the jackpot). This results in a big time loss of revenue for 'CVB. I wonder how much the NFL will have to pony up to make 'CVB whole...


----------



## Lord Vader

HDMe said:


> I've never seen NFL Network in 5.1. Are you sure you don't have your audio receiver set to process and "create" 5.1 from Dolby 2.0? That can be done with ProLogic and other sound processing so it seems like 5.1 but really isn't.





kenn157 said:


> I knew it wasn't in 5.1 Let's see if they upgrade for the BIG GAME! :lol:


Sorry, guys, but I DO have it in DD5.1. In fact, I recorded the last 2 NFL Network games and went back to check. Both played in DD5.1 and outstanding PQ.


----------



## kenn157

Lord Vader said:


> Sorry, guys, but I DO have it in DD5.1. In fact, I recorded the last 2 NFL Network games and went back to check. Both played in DD5.1 and outstanding PQ.


Well we DON'T have it.. Tough luck for us 

If its broadcast in 5.1 then the other networks should have it as well, I would guess. WCVB which was going to be the only ABC affiliate (Boston market) channel 5 broadcast in 5.1 I'll switch around from WCVB to NFL/CBS and NBC to see who has it and who doesn't.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Lord Vader said:


> Sorry, guys, but I DO have it in DD5.1. In fact, I recorded the last 2 NFL Network games and went back to check. Both played in DD5.1 and outstanding PQ.


That actually doesn't answer the question though... Are you sure you don't have your audio receiver set to create 5.1 surround from 2.0 dolby digital? I can set my audio receiver to do that, and if I don't tell anyone I've done that, then they will think my receiver is showing 5.1 surround, when it really isn't there.


----------



## Lord Vader

Nope, I don't have my AV set to do that at all.


----------



## Kheldar

stevecon said:


> Now WCVB Channel 5 in Boston (ABC) is having "discussions" with the NFL, due to a contract issues over this game. It was agreed that WCVB would be the EXCLUSIVE Boston local to carry this game. WBZ (Channel 4 / NBC) and WHDH (Channel 7 / CBS) all expected to lose revenue on this day to WCVB (which of course expected to hit the jackpot). This results in a big time loss of revenue for 'CVB. I wonder how much the NFL will have to pony up to make 'CVB whole...


All hell is breaking loose for WCVB, WMUR, and WWOR (see article):


> But when the feed was also given to NBC and CBS, it was not under the condition that those networks would black it out in the Boston and New York regions, and that raised the ire of the Hearst and Fox stations.
> 
> While station management was not available for comment, Fox Television released a statement protesting the decision. "The NFL is in clear violation of their agreement with WWOR-My9," the statement read. "We fully expect the league to honor their commitment to My9 as the exclusive free over-the-air broadcaster for Saturday's telecast of the New England Patriots at New York Giants game."
> 
> ...
> 
> Hearst-Argyle station management was negotiating with the NFL through the end of the day Friday and was not available for comment.
> 
> WCVB president and general manager Bill Fine released a statement that said, "We are having private and confidential conversations with the NFL and are very hopeful that this unfortunate situation can be worked out to our satisfaction, in light of the fact that we do have a valid contract for exclusive broadcast rights to the Patriots vs. Giants game in the Boston market."
> 
> Seth Palansky, a spokesman for NFL Network, said going wide with the broadcast was a business decision based on the magnitude of the game and the fact that the league could not make any progress with the holdout cable operators.
> 
> "The commissioner made a decision to do what's best for the fans," he added, "and all of these other issues are unintended consequences of the initial decision."


Hmm. "Exclusive broadcast rights"? "Violation of their agreement"?
Does anyone else smell one of these:
* Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits
* NFL returning a portion of the stations' rights fees (possibly after a lawsuit)
* the NBC & Fox stations in those 3 markets losing the game?


----------



## Kheldar

And now RCN Cable is crying foul:


> RCN late Friday afternoon said the NFL's Dec. 26 announcement that CBS and NBC would team with the NFL Network on a national simulcast Saturday night of the potentially historic contest ... devalues its contract with the league's in-house service.
> 
> "This action by the NFL Network seriously devalues the contract between us and we are considering our options. We paid extra for the right to carry this historic game as well as the other games throughout the season," said RCN senior vice president, strategic and external affairs Richard Ramlall in a statement.
> 
> "In effect, the NFL Network is making RCN customers pay extra for what others are getting for free," Ramlall continued. "It's unprecedented that the NFL Network has decided to alter a signed contract without negotiation or consideration of the other parties. If this decision was subject to an instant replay call, it would be overturned as a grievous foul of the rules."


They have a point. The NFL Network demanded extra rights fees from cable & satellite providers to get the "8 game package" on the NFL network (threatening to play old footage instead of the game on the holdout companies' channels), and now is offering one of those games for free to the local stations?

That would seem like a contract violation to me.

But then again, it could be looked at as a "free preview weekend". HBO always stacks the really good movies in the free preview weekends to lure more people to subscribe to their services. When any satellite / cable company offers a free preview weekend to non-subscribing customers, the paying customers don't get a refund for those days.

So, it could go either way.


----------



## Tom Robertson

This has become quite a mess of uninended legal ramifications.


----------



## Lord Vader

Indeed.


----------



## Guest

Lord Vader said:


> Just because your satisfied with the end result of this doesn't make Congress's actions right; they're not. Congress has NO right to get involved with what is nothing but a BUSINESS decision. Good or bad, the decision is a business one between the NFL and the cable companies and related parties. Just because a few Members of Congress get ticked that it won't be viewable in their neck of the woods--now it is, of course--they huff and puff and threaten the NFL.





Lord Vader said:


> So? Who cares? Just because Congress whines and threatens doesn't mean they should have anything to do with it. Please tell me _what substantive federal issue is involved._ And using the Constitution's Commerce Clause won't cut it, because that's not what that section deals with.


Actually, Congress has _every _right to regulate this type of business deal. Whether you like it or not, the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution is what gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce if it chooses to do so, and this is definitely interstate commerce. Why do you think Congress was able to outlaw blackouts of sold-out football games in the '70s? That law overrode the NFL's contracts with the TV networks and allowed millions of fans to see games that would otherwise have been blacked out. Those blackouts would probably still be happening if not for that law.

Where do people get the idea that any kind of regulation of business is a bad idea? We need _more _regulation of this type, not less.


----------



## Guest

Kheldar said:


> The NFL Network demanded extra rights fees from cable & satellite providers to get the "8 game package" on the NFL network (threatening to play old footage instead of the game on the holdout companies' channels), and now is offering one of those games for free to the local stations?
> 
> That would seem like a contract violation to me.


It's a contract violation for sure. The local stations paid the NFL for the right to televise in those markets and now they are facing dilution of their audience.

The NFL has definitely overplayed its hand with NFL Network. What they are trying to do is copy ESPN's strategy, which forces everyone who gets cable or satellite to pay for ESPN, whether they want it or not. Millions of subscribers who don't care at all about sports are paying about $3 or so per month for ESPN and their only alternative is to not subscribe to cable or satellite.


----------



## Tom Robertson

rcoleman111 said:


> It's a contract violation for sure. The local stations paid the NFL for the right to televise in those markets and now they are facing dilution of their audience.
> 
> The NFL has definitely overplayed its hand with NFL Network. What they are trying to do is copy ESPN's strategy, which forces everyone who gets cable or satellite to pay for ESPN, whether they want it or not. Millions of subscribers who don't care at all about sports are paying about $3 or so per month for ESPN and their only alternative is to not subscribe to cable or satellite.


There are other alternatives, that being the limited basic or family base packages.

Happy New Year!
Tom


----------



## Lord Vader

rcoleman111 said:


> Actually, Congress has every right to regulate this type of business deal. Whether you like it or not, the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution is what gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce if it chooses to do so, and this is definitely interstate commerce. Why do you think Congress was able to outlaw blackouts of sold-out football games in the '70s? That law overrode the NFL's contracts with the TV networks and allowed millions of fans to see games that would otherwise have been blacked out. Those blackouts would probably still be happening if not for that law.
> 
> Where do people get the idea that any kind of regulation of business is a bad idea? We need more regulation of this type, not less.


The Commerce Clause has been basstardized to the point that it has been used to justify every frickin' action Congress takes. That was NEVER the intent of the Founding Fathers. They'd be rolling in their graves if they knew what Congress has done to the Commerce Clause.


----------



## DawgLink

rcoleman111 said:


> Whether you like it or not, the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution is what gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce if it chooses to do so, and this is definitely interstate commerce.


It is slightly more complicated then that


----------



## Steve Mehs

I sent both Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter thank you emails earlier today expressing my gratitude for them expressing interest and fighting for consumers and NFL fans for this moment of history. As witnessed here, to often we whine and cry and create noise about things we're unsatisfied with, well I took action and did the opposite. And I will remember both Senators if they ever run for anything on a national level or if they ever happen to relocate to NY, and I mentioned that in my email. These guys did right by me, and if I have the opportunity, I will do right by them. I also encouraged them to keep pressing the issue and when it comes time for NFL Sunday Ticket renewal to speak up. 

Usually I suck at writing this types of things, I don't do much in the way of email, so I have Outlook set to not save sent emails, but I'm very proud of the way I worded my letters, wish I would have thought ahead and copied and pasted them here for all you guys to see.


----------



## Lord Vader

Did you also thank Senator Specter for his being a total hypocrite in this matter, in light of what he did for Comcast Philadelphia? If you did not, then you are being inconsistent in your arguments. Just another example of how we can let our emotions get involved and be in favor of something when it satisfies our selfish needs, even if it's wrong, but if it's something that we oppose, then we're all up in arms.


----------



## Guest

DawgLink said:


> It is slightly more complicated then that


True, but the bottom line is that business conducted across state lines is interstate commerce and it is subject to federal regulation.


----------



## FireMedic8039

The NFL, which is accustomed to being in the driver's seat on TV matters, mistakenly believed it could control this one, too. It commands top dollar for its prize content -- a 53 percent rise in the latest round of broadcast deals -- which delivers $3.7 billion a year to the league.

What really gets me. When these billionaires want a new stadium. They go after the taxepayers to build it for them. The NFL should fund it. Not us.


----------



## SamC

Steve Mehs said:


> I sent both Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter thank you emails earlier today expressing my gratitude for them expressing interest and fighting for consumers and NFL fans for this moment of history.


What "consumers" are these? This serves only the interests of the cable monopolists and harms consumers. The pro consumer action, of course, would have been to let more and more people leave the unresponsive cable monopolists for DBS and other customer friendly competitors. Thus cable would be forced to carry the channels its customers want, abandoned it fundamental business plan, which is minimum value for maximum price.


----------



## lflorack

Steve Mehs said:


> Save the BS. Some how 'graciously permitting the nation to experience together' does not coincide with 'The NFL had faced mounting pressure from politicians in recent weeks to make the game available to more viewers.'


First, I don't think it had anything to do with political pressure. But in any case, the politicians need to keep their noses out of this. It's a free market decision. No laws are being broken -- not even close.


----------



## lflorack

Steve Mehs said:


> I honestly don't really care, I'm not a D* subscriber, I don't see how I'd benefit or lose.


That's an extremely narrow view and very parochial. The fact it's OK simply based on your desires and particular slant does not make it right.


----------



## lflorack

rcoleman111 said:



> Where do people get the idea that any kind of regulation of business is a bad idea? We need _more _regulation of this type, not less.


Matter of opinion. Mine is that we need less legislation of just about everything. Any time the government gets involved in just about anything (save a few) I find myself wishing for less involvement.

In this case, it seems that political involvement is petty and frivolous. Again, matter of opinion.


----------



## Guest

lflorack said:


> Matter of opinion. Mine is that we need less legislation of just about everything. Any time the government gets involved in just about anything (save a few) I find myself wishing for less involvement.
> 
> In this case, it seems that political involvement is petty and frivolous. Again, matter of opinion.


Do you wish Congress had never outlawed blackouts of sold-out football games, and that all of the games were still being blacked out in the home markets? You could call that "petty and frivolous", too.


----------



## Steve Mehs

lflorack said:


> That's an extremely narrow view and very parochial. The fact it's OK simply based on your desires and particular slant does not make it right.


Yes, when it comes to hypothetical situations that have zero chance of happening, that wouldn't affect me one way or the other, generally I don't care. The response you quoted was to a question about if lawmakers put a cap on what DirecTV could charge.



lflorack said:


> First, I don't think it had anything to do with political pressure. But in any case, the politicians need to keep their noses out of this. It's a free market decision. No laws are being broken -- not even close.


If it have anything to do with political pressure, the what did it have to do with? I don't think the line 'The NFL had faced mounting pressure from politicians in recent weeks to make the game available to more viewers' could make it any clearer.


----------



## Greg Bimson

rcoleman111 said:


> Do you wish Congress had never outlawed blackouts of sold-out football games, and that all of the games were still being blacked out in the home markets? You could call that "petty and frivolous", too.


Let's make sure we go over the semantics, here.

It was Congress and the President that allowed the NFL and other sports leagues the right to market the entire slate of league games to networks with the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. It was passed directly in response to the Justice Department's belief that broadcasting deals by both the NFL and AFL were violations of anti-trust law. Within a matter of three months, the NFL was able to get Congress to change the law, and exempt sports leagues and their broadcasting rights from anti-trust laws.

It was Congress and the President that allowed the NFL and AFL to merge. Without the passage of the exemption to anti-trust laws, the two competing leagues would have never been allowed to merge. It is those same laws that blocked DirecTV and Dish Network from merging about five years ago.

Therefore, because Congress and the President created this monopoly, it is Congress and the Presdient, and therefore the government, which must provide oversight to the NFL. Therefore, I have no problem with Congress and the President stepping in regarding the 1973 law to prohibit blackouts. In my view, it is one of those laws that made the league even more stronger.

However, this is a different animal. I appreciate that Congress is trying to oversee the NFL and possible abusive practices, but this whole scenario would not have occurred if the NFL Network was available to all homes via their local cable companies. And the only reason it isn't available is because the cable companies will not come to an agreement with the NFL subsidiary. In this case, the NFL wants its network to have broader distribution, and it is the cable companies that are prohibiting it.

Which then leads me to the issue of a given cable company, which wholly owns a sports channel, which also is majority owner of the local big league franchises as well as the complex in which those teams play. That sports channel is not available to the satellite companies because the cable company doesn't want the satellite comapnies to carry it, and these lawmakers think that is just fine.

And they are headquartered in Senator Arlen Specter's state. You know, the same Senator complaining about the NFL Network.

I wonder if some Philadelphia-based lawyer wants to work on bringing down that anti-trust violation.


----------



## Lord Vader

rcoleman111 said:


> True, but the bottom line is that business conducted across state lines is interstate commerce and it is subject to federal regulation.


Except that that argument could realistically apply to every business out there, and that's not what the Commerce Clause was designed to include, which is the reason why it is, in fact, more "complicated" than you say.


----------



## Lord Vader

rcoleman111 said:


> Do you wish Congress had never outlawed blackouts of sold-out football games, and that all of the games were still being blacked out in the home markets? You could call that "petty and frivolous", too.


Bill Wirtz did it for the Chicago Blackhawks, and he paid for it--not by congressional action, but by a fan base that dwindled and turned the once proud franchise into a doormat. Now his son, who took over after Bill died, has turned things around, removing the home blackouts and slowly beginning the process of resurrecting the franchise. And all this without the actions of a meddling Congress.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Lord Vader said:


> Did you also thank Senator Specter for his being a total hypocrite in this matter, in light of what he did for Comcast Philadelphia? If you did not, then you are being inconsistent in your arguments. Just another example of how we can let our emotions get involved and be in favor of something when it satisfies our selfish needs, even if it's wrong, but if it's something that we oppose, then we're all up in arms.


Of course I'm being inconsistent, Comcast Sports Net Philly is not a concern for me. As for hypocrisy, I know you're perfect in every way, every person at least once in their lifetime is a hypocrite on some issue, I know you have never been, but I have, and other have been as well.

And thank you again for paying taxes to fund the salaries of Mr. Specter and Mr. Leahy and other political figures who may come out and support them. I appreciate their efforts and I appreciate your money.

BTW - If I was a Senator or Congressman, I would be no different. I can be bought. Dish, DirecTV, Comcast, Exxon Mobil, McDonalds, the NFL. I don't care, money shows no loyalty, you pay me off and I'll lobby your cause and take care of you. Money talks baby!


----------



## Lord Vader

Steve Mehs said:


> Of course I'm being inconsistent...


Your confession precludes anyone from ever taking seriously what you have to say, which might be a good thing from hereon. We can just dismiss your posts as the ramblings of someone speaking from emotion and illogic.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Dismiss what you don't agree with, the American way. 

I know you're better then me, you've never been inconsistent about anything. I bow down in your presence oh rightful one. And you have a consistent opinion on everything, even those things that have no bearing on your existence.


----------



## Lord Vader

Steve Mehs said:


> Dismiss what you don't agree with, the American way.


No, it's called dismissing what you have illustrated is inconsistent and illogical.



> I bow down in your presence oh rightful one. And you have a consistent opinion on everything, even those things that have no bearing on your existence.


You finally understand.


----------



## Steve Mehs

> No, it's called dismissing what you have illustrated is inconsistent and illogical.


Again do you realize the NFL Network affects me, Comcast Sports Net Philly does not. I drink Coke, not Pepsi. Pepsi could get the contract with McDonalds becoming the soda provider instead of Coke. I don't eat at McDonalds, it has not affect on me, therefore I don't care.


----------



## Msguy

Go Patriots


----------



## Lord Vader

Go Giants. (If for no other reason that it would totally devastate Steve Meh's dream season.)


----------



## Steve Mehs

Lord Vader said:


> Go Giants. (If for no other reason that it would totally devastate Steve Meh's dream season.)


At least spell my name right.


----------



## Lord Vader

I was hoping you wouldn't notice.


----------



## Steve Mehs

No one can pronounce it correctly, so the least I can ask for is correct spelling.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Steve Mehs said:


> No one can pronounce it correctly, so the least I can ask for is correct spelling.


Hey, wait... I thought (according to other threads) it doesn't matter how you spell as long as people know what you are talking about


----------



## Steve Mehs

:lol: You got me


----------



## Guest

Greg Bimson said:


> However, this is a different animal. I appreciate that Congress is trying to oversee the NFL and possible abusive practices, but this whole scenario would not have occurred if the NFL Network was available to all homes via their local cable companies. And the only reason it isn't available is because the cable companies will not come to an agreement with the NFL subsidiary. In this case, the NFL wants its network to have broader distribution, and it is the cable companies that are prohibiting it.


Not a different animal at all, and certainly not just semantics. Most of your comments simply confirm what I said - that the NFL's business practices and it's TV contracts are subject to federal regulation. If you don't like it, you're entitled to your opinion, but there are a lot of us who like it just fine. It's perfectly legal and it benefits consumers, just as the law that stopped the blackouts did. If you want to pretend that law had no similarity to the issue being discussed here, go right ahead, but most of us know better.

The cable companies are simply trying to avoid having to pay fees based on the total number of subscribers on their systems, which forces every subscriber to pay for NFL Network whether they want it or not. When they added the 8-game package of live telecasts, they raised subscriber fees substantially and insisted it could only be on a basic program tier, which would force every subscriber to bear the cost of NFL Network. Time Warner and some of the other companies wanted to put it on a separate tier where only those who wanted the program would have to pay for it. The NFL copied that strategy from ESPN - in fact, it's the same person who is responsible.

Before there was competition from satellite, the cable operators could tell ESPN to shove it and drop the channel from their systems if the per-subscriber cost got too high. Subscribers had nowhere else to go, so it would have meant lost revenue for ESPN if the cable companies dropped them. With competition from satellite, the cable companies have little choice but to go along with these tactics and pass on the costs to all subscribers, whether they watch ESPN or not. The result is that all subscribers on cable or satellite systems are forced to pay the exorbitant fees charged by ESPN, which should be sold as a premium channel or on a separate program tier where everyone isn't forced to pay for it. These practices are commonplace today and they are the reason programming costs continue to skyrocket for both cable and satellite. Consumers are having to pay for this in rapidly rising subscription fees and the only thing that will stop it is federal regulation.


----------



## Greg Bimson

rcoleman111 said:


> Not a different animal at all, and certainly not just semantics. Most of what you've said simply confirms what I said - that the NFL's business practices and it's TV contracts are subject to federal regulation. If you don't like it, you're entitled to your opinion, but there are a lot of us who like it just fine. It's perfectly legal and it benefits consumers, just as the law that stopped the blackouts did. If you want to pretend that law had no similarity to the issue being discussed here, go right ahead, but most of us know better.


Most of who knows better?

The NFL owns a distribution channel, which is available to all takers, just like Disney and NewsCorp and NBC/Universal and Scripps, and even Comcast. And the complaints are coming because access to these games are being denied by the cable companies. Call it what you will, but then when the cable companies come crying to the government for help, *one of these cable companies employs this practice on a much worse scale.*


rcoleman111 said:


> The cable companies are simply trying to avoid having to pay fees based on the total number of subscribers on their systems, which forces every subscriber to pay for NFL Network whether they want it or not. When they added the 8-game package of live telecasts, they raised subscriber fees substantially and insisted it could only be on a basic program tier, which would force every subscriber to bear the cost of NFL Network. They copied that strategy from ESPN - in fact, it's the same person who is responsible.


Okay. So this isn't about Congress stepping in and making sure the game is available, as much as it is that Congress should step in and protect the cable companies, *including the one that is a much worse offender*.


rcoleman111 said:


> The result is that all subscribers on cable or satellite systems are forced to pay the exorbitant fees charged by ESPN, which should be sold as a premium channel or on a separate program tier where everyone isn't forced to pay for it.


Once again, the fact that a couple of Senators have commented on the NFL Network's ownership and possible anti-trust violations does not equate to your opinion as to how programming should be structured.


> all subscribers on cable or satellite systems are forced to pay the exorbitant fees charged by ESPN


You nor I make a check out to ESPN, so I'd ask the statement be rephrased. The statement makes it appear there is a direct correlation between programming costs to the distributor and packaging costs to the consumer, when over half of a cable or satellite bill does not pay for programming.


----------



## Lord Vader

Steve Mehs said:


> :lol: You got me


All too easy.


----------



## Steve Mehs

If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Steve Mehs said:


> If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?


Other people. Always laugh at other people 

But semi-on-topic for a moment... I hate when the government gets involved in things that are not really earth-shaking matters. They really should have more important things to do and more important problems to solve than monkeying around with NFL broadcasts.

I find it sad when a senator or congressman will be up in arms about how NFL fans are being "cheated" by not having the NFL Network... when there are lots of homeless and hungry people who are being more cheated by not having food or shelter. Where's the outrage and instant bills being passed to fix those problems?


----------



## Greg Bimson

Because homeless people don't have money.


----------



## kenn157

NFL(212), CBS(Boston) no DD5.1 ------ WCVB(ABC-Boston), NBC(Boston) YES on DD5.1


----------



## phox_mulder

kenn157 said:


> NFL(212), CBS(Boston) no DD5.1 ------ WCVB(ABC-Boston), NBC(Boston) YES on DD5.1


Here it sounds like NBC(KSL 5-1) is faking the DD5.1 though, commentators aren't coming out of the center channel.

phox


----------



## Steve Mehs

DCSholtis said:


> Think about it...when a game is on ESPN and the local affiliates simulcast the game do they have access to the HD feed?!! Nope. So why would NBC and CBS get it in this case. The only reason why this is an issue is because those in Congress cannot get LOS in the District and have to pig up on the cable.


Sorry, both NBC and CBS have the game in HD and it looks spectacular here on CBS HD on Time Warner Cable. Consumers win, so go hug your dish and DEAL WITH IT!

I do like the the NFL Networks opening theme, but I not surprised to see the comish give an opening statement.


----------



## csgo

I don't care which network you watch it on Bryant Gumbel is TERRIBLE. It's very difficult to enjoy a game with him attempting to announce it.


----------



## Lord Vader

My local NBC network affiliate along with the HD DNS channel 82 are DD5.1. The NFL Network and CBS feed are both Neural THX 7.1. Strange.


----------



## angiecopus

I sure hope CBS reshows Good Night and Good Luck. i hope patriots get beat i really do.


----------



## kenn157

Steve Mehs said:


> Sorry, both NBC and CBS have the game in HD and it looks spectacular here on CBS HD on Time Warner Cable. Consumers win, so go hug your dish and DEAL WITH IT!
> 
> I do like the the NFL Networks opening theme, but I not surprised to see the comish give an opening statement.


Never said they wernt in HD... As they are!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

My local NBC is sending 5.1 surround, just 2.0 from CBS and NFL Network. Picture quality looks pretty much the same on all channels for me. Usually my CBS is the sharpest, then NFL Network or FOX, then ESPN and NBC.

Also, I think the lightbulb went off in my head as to why they agreed to let this go OTA tonight... There have been a LOT of NFL Network commercials, especially the one where they are bashing the cable companies for not carrying it... so I think they wanted to give the football public a view of what they've been missing in hopes that will drive more complaints to the cable companies.


----------



## Spazzman

Tom Robertson said:


> For me, I'm good either way, I have NFL Network.
> For NFL Network, I guess I'll leave that up to the owners. They make more than I do, so I'll let them fight it out.
> For Congressmen, I'd rather they didn't waste my tax money on this. Seems like we have more pressing things for them to spend time with. Or to spend their political capital upon.
> For the rest of us, I'm sorry for Bryant Gumble to be on such a large stage in this role. I have nothing personally against him, in fact I like him in other roles. This doesn't seem to be where his gifts and skills lie.
> 
> Happy Holidays!
> Tom


Tom - I will state my opinion about Bryant a little stronger.

1. Gumbel - you stink - you are a horrible announcer
2. You are a horrible news caster
3. You are horrible. Get off my TV Gumbel!

Ok.. I feel better now. I am more calm.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Thank You again Senators Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter for allowing me, a very happy Time Warner Cable subscriber and an NFL fan, to watch history take place and see the best team in the NFL history go undefeated. :goodjob:

Great game, great outcome, great HD picture quality, bunch of records broken, truly awesome!


----------



## Lord Vader

Best team in NFL history? Hardly. That is a statement that cannot yet be true. Never mind the fact that they barely beat a mediocre team. Clearly, the Pats are vulnerable.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Oh here we go with your nonsense again. The Giants played their hearts out this game, the Pats fell behind and came back. Keep saying they're a vulnerable team when they're 19-0.


----------



## Lord Vader

Hardly, I'm just correcting your ridiculous, illogical statements. Again. You've been saying for weeks now that they're the best team in history, which is just stupid. It's no different from saying it after they were 2-0 or 4-0. They can't even be in the classification of "best" anything until after the Super Bowl. If they win that, then a good argument could be made. Until then, it's just foolish babbling on your part.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook

burn :lol:


----------



## Steve Mehs

I’m sick of your BS, all you do is come here looking for conflict. I'm done playing games with you. There's a difference between foolish babbling and believing, and I believe in the New England Patriots. They made 16-0 and that’s not good enough, so be it. The records will speak for themselves. Ridiculous and illogical, that sums you up pretty well.

Don't bother responding, whatever you spew I won't be reading, so save the effort.


----------



## Lord Vader

I'm not the one spewing the BS, son. I'm simply stating logical facts, that being one cannot label a team "best in history" when the history is still being written. An undefeated regular season is impressive, no doubt, but what if they lost in the post-season? What if they went 16-1? 17-1? They wouldn't be able to be considered "best in history." Then you'd have to correct yourself. Wait until February 3, 2008, when the term "best" might be more correct. Until then, dispense with your emotions and personal bias.


----------



## kenn157

16 and 0ooooooooooooh baby!


----------



## Lord Vader

The Patriots join only three other NFL teams to finish the regular season undefeated. The 1972 Dolphins, the 1942 Bears, and the 1934 Bears are the other three. Now, if one is talking about "best in history," only the aforementioned Dolphins and Bears can be included in that at this time, although it's debatable considering the Bears were upset in the NFL Championship game. Come February 3, 2008, this "best in history" could easily change.


----------



## Mustang Dave

That was an entertaining game! The Giants didn't disappoint and made it fun to watch. 

I think an argument can be made the Pats are the best team of all time if they go on to win the SB. IMO that could be considered a greater achievement then the '84 Niners and '85 Bears that both went 15-1 and won the SB. Although the 49ers one loss was due mostly to a controversial interference call on 4th down in the end zone against the Steelers and the Steelers ended up winning that game. That would be a small difference between a 16-0 Pat's and a 15-1 Niners in regular season so maybe an argument can be made for both teams being the greatest. The Bears one loss was a 14 point game to none other than the Dolphins. I suppose there is strength of schedule too that should be considered when ranking a team's single season accomplishment and the Pat's were the only one in their division with a winning record. I don't know more then that and I will leave the rest of the number crunching to the ESPN guys if it should come down to that. 

Congrats to the Pats though for the perfect regular season. Now we can erase that shorter season record from the books!


----------



## Lord Vader

Well, Shula still believes there should be an asterisk next to the Pats' regular season record. I guess he believes the video tape incident stains the 16-0 record. Someone ought to tell Shula to shut up.


----------



## Guest

Greg Bimson said:


> Most of who knows better?
> 
> The NFL owns a distribution channel, which is available to all takers, just like Disney and NewsCorp and NBC/Universal and Scripps, and even Comcast. And the complaints are coming because access to these games are being denied by the cable companies. Call it what you will, but then when the cable companies come crying to the government for help, *one of these cable companies employs this practice on a much worse scale.*Okay. So this isn't about Congress stepping in and making sure the game is available, as much as it is that Congress should step in and protect the cable companies, *including the one that is a much worse offender*.Once again, the fact that a couple of Senators have commented on the NFL Network's ownership and possible anti-trust violations does not equate to your opinion as to how programming should be structured.You nor I make a check out to ESPN, so I'd ask the statement be rephrased. The statement makes it appear there is a direct correlation between programming costs to the distributor and packaging costs to the consumer, when over half of a cable or satellite bill does not pay for programming.


Greg, it's the NFL that has been crying for help. They thought they had the upper hand and they were wrong. The NFL's insistence on selling the channel only on a basic tier is at the very heart of the dispute. It's an attempt to force people who don't watch football to pay for NFL network. To claim that programming costs aren't passed on to consumers is really kind of silly. It makes about as much sense as claiming that the anti-blackout law in the '70s didn't amount to interference with private business deals. I hate to have to repeat myself, but most of us know better.

The stuff coming from Senators about anti-trust is just jawboning in an attempt to get them to clean up their act. It's a tactic that often works, as we saw that with the MLB EI deal. And if jawboning doesn't work, they can always resort to legislation to regulate these practices, as they did when they outlawed blackouts of sold-out games. It's completely legal and is nothing more than looking out for their constituents.


----------



## twistedT

kenn157 said:


> 16 and 0ooooooooooooh baby!


:righton: Ooooh YEAH!!!! :righton:


----------



## Greg Bimson

rcoleman111 said:


> Greg, it's the NFL that has been crying for help. They thought they had the upper hand and they were wrong. The NFL's insistence on selling the channel only on a basic tier is at the very heart of the dispute. It's an attempt to force people who don't watch football to pay for NFL network. To claim that programming costs aren't passed on to consumers is really kind of silly. It makes about as much sense as claiming that the anti-blackout law in the '70s didn't amount to interference with private business deals.


I never claimed program costs aren't passed onto comsumers. I claimed that consumers don't directly pay for channels; they are packaged by the programmers and the cable/satellite companies, normally to allow the cable/satellite company to profit more from the arrangement.


rcoleman111 said:


> I hate to have to repeat myself, but most of us know better.


Once again, most of who knows better?


rcoleman111 said:


> The stuff coming from Senators about anti-trust is just jawboning in an attempt to get them to clean up their act. It's a tactic that often works, as we saw that with the MLB EI deal. And if jawboning doesn't work, they can always resort to legislation to regulate these practices, as they did when they outlawed blackouts of sold-out games. It's completely legal and is nothing more than looking out for their constituents.


And after this fiasco, I truly doubt the NFL will put any of their NFL Network games OTA again, astheir business partners are completely upset about this.


----------



## Guest

Greg Bimson said:


> I never claimed program costs aren't passed onto comsumers. I claimed that consumers don't directly pay for channels; they are packaged by the programmers and the cable/satellite companies, normally to allow the cable/satellite company to profit more from the arrangement.


Gee, thanks for the tutorial on how cable and satellite companies bill. Also for confirming what I've already said - that the cost of channels like ESPN and NFL Network are passed on to consumers. Not sure what it is you're disputing.



Greg Bimson said:


> Once again, most of who knows better?


It's just an expression. I think most of us know what it means.



Greg Bimson said:


> And after this fiasco, I truly doubt the NFL will put any of their NFL Network games OTA again, astheir business partners are completely upset about this.


That's entirely possible, but they still have to deal the issue of how to get the upper hand on the cable companies. The cable companies are refusing to budge, and it's pretty clear who blinked.


----------



## Greg Bimson

rcoleman111 said:


> Gee, thanks for the tutorial on how cable and satellite companies bill. Also for confirming what I've already said - that the cost of channels like ESPN and NFL Network are passed on to consumers. Not sure what it is you're disputing.


Simple.

The senators that addressed the issue only did so in the context that the NFL is a monopoly and may have to face more scrutiny under anti-trust laws. Someone has turned this into a channel-packaging dispute, and that is not what the Congress critters were addressing.

Therefore, this NFL Network issue has nothing to do with the wider picture of channel-packaging.

And most of us here know better than that.


----------



## Guest

Greg Bimson said:


> Simple.
> 
> The senators that addressed the issue only did so in the context that the NFL is a monopoly and may have to face more scrutiny under anti-trust laws. Someone has turned this into a channel-packaging dispute, and that is not what the Congress critters were addressing.
> 
> Therefore, this NFL Network issue has nothing to do with the wider picture of channel-packaging.
> 
> And most of us here know better than that.


Well, at least you're not going to ask me who "most of us" are again. I suppose we're making headway.

The threat of antitrust scrutiny is just jawboning. Congress has the power to regulate how cable channels are sold regardless of any antitrust issues and regardless of whether or not the NFL has any kind of "antitrust exemption". My comment was a response to another poster who claimed Congress had "no right" to regulate contracts between the cable operators and the companies they buy programming from. I simply stated that they have "every right" to do so, which is true.

Whatever the actions the Senators were threatening to take, channel-packaging has _everything _to do with the dispute between the NFL and the cable companies. It is what the dispute is all about. The NFL wants to charge based on the total number of subscribers on a given cable system; the cable companies want to pay based on the number of people who subscribe to a separate sports tier. The cable companies are refusing to budge, which is why they are not carrying NFL Network at this time.


----------



## Greg Bimson

rcoleman111 said:


> Whatever the actions the Senators were threatening to take, channel-packaging has everything to do with the dispute between the NFL and the cable companies. It is what the dispute is all about.


Then you are reading more into the dispute than is there.

It may be that the lack of carriage on cable companies caused this mess, but the reality was that the senators in question openly stated that because of this percieved problem, the senators might simply look at the NFL's anti-trust legislation. Nothing to do with channel packaging.


----------



## Tom Robertson

rcoleman111 and Greg Bimson, I suspect you are both partially right and both slightly off with terminology. Normally that wouldn't be a problem at all, in this situation, you seem to be talking at cross terms.

Cable channel Bundling, as set by the channel providers does not apply at all and is often referred to as packaging as well. The NFL did bundle NFL Network with NFL ST but did not bundle NFL ST with the NFL Network. (DIRECTV must carry NFL Network to carry ST, obviously the cable providers can't carry NFL ST at all.)

Cable packaging does apply--those packages of bundles that cable and satellite companies sell to customers. ESPN has been able to demand that it be carried in the most common package, yet cable and satellite have managed to sneak in a family package that does not include ESPN. (Bet that was some fun negotiations with ESPN.)

NFL Network wants to be in that same package tier as ESPN and CNN. Packaging vs. pricing is the issue. 

Happy New Year!
Tom


----------



## Guest

Absolutely correct, Tom. That is exactly what the dispute is all about.


----------



## Greg Bimson

I'll agree that is what the dispute is about. However, in the letter written by Senators Leahy and Specter, it was stated that, "Now that the NFL is adopting strategies to limit distribution of game programming to their own networks, Congress may need to reexamine the need and desirability of their continued exemption from the Nation's antitrust laws."

I'm sorry, but that does not translate into a problem with channel packaging to cable companies. And to think it does is foolish.

The senators are trying to beat the NFL over the head with their anti-trust legislation. No more, no less. And they even may be doing that at the behest of the cable companies. But the threat by the senators had less to do with the threat of legislating the NFL Network's terms to cable companies. The threat was directly to the NFL's way of doing business via their anti-trust exemption.

So neither bundling nor packaging was the problem the senators were addressing.


----------



## Guest

Greg Bimson said:


> I'll agree that is what the dispute is about. However, in the letter written by Senators Leahy and Specter, it was stated that, "Now that the NFL is adopting strategies to limit distribution of game programming to their own networks, Congress may need to reexamine the need and desirability of their continued exemption from the Nation's antitrust laws."
> 
> I'm sorry, but that does not translate into a problem with channel packaging to cable companies. And to think it does is foolish.
> 
> The senators are trying to beat the NFL over the head with their anti-trust legislation. No more, no less. And they even may be doing that at the behest of the cable companies. But the threat by the senators had less to do with the threat of legislating the NFL Network's terms to cable companies. The threat was directly to the NFL's way of doing business via their anti-trust exemption.
> 
> So neither bundling nor packaging was the problem the senators were addressing.


OK, we're making progress. You know who "most of us" are and now you acknowledge that the dispute is about the NFL trying to force its channel onto the basic tier so that everyone will have to pay for it.

You are correct in noting that the Senators are not directly addressing how the NFL Network is sold, only the fact that it isn't available to millions of cable subscribers. But that is what the dispute between the NFL and the cable companies is about, so it's a legitimate topic for this thread.


----------



## Greg Bimson

I am agreeing the dispute is about the lack of carriage of the NFL Network. It is because of the _lack_ of carriage that the senators wrote a letter to the NFL regarding possible remedies. One of the suggested remedies in the letter by the senators is anti-trust legislation against the NFL, not bundling nor packaging.

Although channel packaging and pricing is part of the dispute, it is not being addressed as part of the solution. Congress appears to have zero interest in changing the status quo, although curiously FCC Chairman Martin is an advocate of a la carte. But even Mr. Martin has no dog in this hunt. Just the jawboning of some senators on the Judiciary Committee pandering to some of their "cable corporation constituents".


----------



## Guest

Greg Bimson said:


> I am agreeing the dispute is about the lack of carriage of the NFL Network. It is because of the _lack_ of carriage that the senators wrote a letter to the NFL regarding possible remedies. One of the suggested remedies in the letter by the senators is anti-trust legislation against the NFL, not bundling nor packaging.


The dispute is about packaging NFL Network with the basic tier, forcing all subscribers to pay for it. Simple as that. First you claimed it wasn't so, then you acknowledged it was true after Tom Robertson replied, now you're back to denying it again.



Greg Bimson said:


> Although channel packaging and pricing is part of the dispute, it is not being addressed as part of the solution. Congress appears to have zero interest in changing the status quo, although curiously FCC Chairman Martin is an advocate of a la carte. But even Mr. Martin has no dog in this hunt. Just the jawboning of some senators on the Judiciary Committee pandering to some of their "cable corporation constituents".


For the umpteenth time, it isn't just part of the dispute, it _is_ the dispute. The cable operators want to put NFL Network on a separate tier so that only subscribers to that tier have to pay for it. If the NFL wasn't insisting on putting NFL Network on the basic tier, this dispute wouldn't even be taking place.

As to Congress having "zero interest in changing the status quo", that is simply not true. A number of prominent politicians, including John McCain, have spoken out on the subject of consumers having to pay for channels they don't want in order to get channels they do want. Federal law is what created service tiers to begin with and could very well be revised to force sports channels like ESPN to be put on a separate tier or sold a la carte. As programming costs continue to rise and are passed on to consumers, this issue will only get more visibility.


----------



## Greg Bimson

rcoleman111 said:


> The dispute is about packaging NFL Network with the basic tier, forcing all subscribers to pay for it. Simple as that. First you claimed it wasn't so, then you acknowledged it was true after Tom Robertson replied, now you're back to denying it again.


The actual dispute is that NFL Network isn't available to everyone, and the _problem_ is that cable companies aren't too happy with placing the NFL Network in the basic tier, so that the NFL Network is practically available to everyone.


rcoleman111 said:


> For the umpteenth time, it isn't just part of the dispute, it is the dispute. The cable operators want to put NFL Network on a separate tier so that only subscribers to that tier have to pay for it. If the NFL wasn't insisting on putting NFL Network on the basic tier, this dispute wouldn't even be taking place.


The NFL Network is available on many systems in the basic tier. So the actual "dispute" over carriage is limited to a handful of cable companies, and it is those cable companies that serve the most customers.


rcoleman111 said:


> As to Congress having "zero interest in changing the status quo", that is simply not true. A number of prominent politicians, including John McCain, have spoken out on the subject of consumers having to pay for channels they don't want in order to get channels they do want.


There isn't any pending legislation for a la carte introduced by McCain. FCC Chairman Martin has backed away from forced implementation of a la carte.


rcoleman111 said:


> Federal law is what created service tiers to begin with and could very well be revised to force sports channels like ESPN to be put on a separate tier or sold a la carte. As programming costs continue to rise and are passed on to consumers, this issue will only get more visibility.


The _solution_ to the perceived problem of consumer access to the NFL Network is to have special legislation passed to remove the NFL's anti-trust exemption.

There has been no mention of implementing a la carte by any of the parties involved. The only possible remedy listed by the senators is to pass a law to strip some of the exemptions to anti-trust law the NFL enjoys. Continually harping on a la carte was never the answer for this dispute. Nor will it be.

So for anyone that is completely misunderstanding, the senators letter contained this statement:

Now that the NFL is adopting strategies to limit distribution of game programming to their own networks, Congress may need to reexamine the need and desirability of their continued exemption from the Nation's antitrust laws.

There is no limiting the distribution of NFL Network, only that a handful of cable companies have not signed carriage agreements with the NFL Network. And the remedy is to remove the anti-trust exemptions given to the NFL, not to implement some kind of a la carte.

Rather than have the senators try some kind of binding arbitration between the NFL Network and the cable companies, the senators wrote a letter to the NFL, siding with the cable companies. In the letter, a la carte wasn't addressed. This is as far from an a la carte issue you can get.

Yet we keep hearing about it here. And it isn't the case.


----------



## Guest

Greg Bimson said:


> The actual dispute is that NFL Network isn't available to everyone,
> .
> .
> .
> Yet we keep hearing about it here. And it isn't the case.


The dispute is exactly what I said it is and repeating yourself isn't going to change that fact.


----------



## Kheldar

:grin: :eek2: Ding-Ding-Ding :eek2: :grin: 
And that bell means the end of the round!
Men, please return to your corners!

I think "most of us" D ) here understand your points.


----------



## Greg Bimson

And believing that Congress will provide legislation for a la carte based upon this dispute is a pipe dream. They didn't do anything other than write a threatening letter to the NFL. And most of us here know that.

I'll take round one.


----------



## Guest

Greg Bimson said:


> And believing that Congress will provide legislation for a la carte based upon this dispute is a pipe dream. They didn't do anything other than write a threatening letter to the NFL. And most of us here know that.
> 
> I'll take round one.


The only thing you've taken is the booby prize. You seem to believe that because two senators threatened a particular course of action in one letter, it means that no other actions have been considered or ever will be. Sorry, but most of know better than that.


----------



## Kheldar

rcoleman111 said:


> The only thing you've taken is the booby prize. You seem to believe that because two senators threatened a particular course of action in one letter, it means that no other actions have been considered or ever will be. Sorry, but most of know better than that.


Uh-oh, the infamous "most of us" strikes again! :eek2:


----------



## Frank Anchor

HDMe said:


> What is curious is why FOX and ESPN were left out of the mix.
> 
> Many schools of thought here. ESPN could be out because that requires cable, and would still leave OTA people in the dark.. so going OTA covers everyone that would have missed the game.. but that doesn't explain why CBS and NBC but not FOX.
> 
> I believe NFL Network is 1080i, as is CBS and NBC.. so another school of thought is that FOX and ESPN (being 720p) were left out because there would be more work required to convert the NFL Network broadcast into a format those networks could provide to their affiliates.
> 
> My 2nd thought seems more likely to me... as I can't think of any other reason to pick just CBS and NBC for the multicast.


It wasnt on Fox because Fox's package is games where the away team is from the *NFC* whereas CBS's package is games where the away team is from the *AFC*. The Pats (an AFC team) were the away team, so the game was shown on CBS.

I still don't understand why CBS and NBC showed it


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Frank Anchor said:


> I still don't understand why CBS and NBC showed it


That was the crux of my question really.

It would have made sense if they gave it to NBC only because NBC has Sunday Night football for any matchup (and had the first Saturday wildcard matchups too).

It would also have made sense if they gave it to CBS only because CBS normally would have that kind of AFC-NFC matchup given where the game was being played.

But giving it to both networks opens the door to why not let all networks have it if they wanted. I suppose for all we know they did, and FOX just passed.


----------



## Kheldar

Are there _any_ markets (no matter how small) that have 1 CBS or 1 NBC but not both?


----------



## Greg Bimson

Sure, but not large enough to care.

Take a look at the viewership for the game. No matter what it was, I guarantee that it was CBS' and NBC's best viewership on a Saturday night for some time.


----------

