# It's time to open up NFL Sunday Ticket to everyone?



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

A few interesting articles about some who feel Sunday Ticket should be open to all carriers (carriers= DirecTV,Comcast,Dish Network, Verizon FiOS, & AT&T Uverse):

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071030
http://consumerist.com/consumer/mon...directv-nfl-sunday-ticket-monopoly-317053.php


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

jtn said:


> A few interesting articles about some who feel Sunday Ticket should be open to all carriers (carriers= DirecTV,Comcast,Dish Network, Verizon FiOS, & AT&T Uverse):
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071030
> http://consumerist.com/consumer/mon...directv-nfl-sunday-ticket-monopoly-317053.php


Good luck...the NFL went with DirecTV because of its limited reach so as not to upset the major networks who were/are paying huge dollars for their Sunday broadcast rights.
The next round of negotiations should be interesting. You never know there may be a new satellite provider entering the game.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Good luck...the NFL went with DirecTV because of its limited reach so as not to upset the major networks who were/are paying huge dollars for their Sunday broadcast rights.
> The next round of negotiations should be interesting. You never know there may be a new satellite provider entering the game.


It's interesting the World Series was open to all, but not football. I enjoy football and don't have Sunday Ticket, but I can still get some games via NESN, ESPN or local affiliates when Patriots play at home.

I was able to watch most of the Red Sox games on NESN HD too without buying any sports packages per se. Same with Patriots games. It seems if it's a team in your region, you don't need the sports pack if that is the team you want to watch.

Not just in sports, I think all HBO Comedy and other HBO channels, Showtime has other channels, etc should be available to all regardless of who they subscribe with, the company would make more by having more subscriptions. Except of course the company that is monopolizing it would lose some viewership.


----------



## HDhysteria (Sep 16, 2007)

jtn said:


> It's interesting the World Series was open to all, but not football. I enjoy football and don't have Sunday Ticket, but I can still get some games via NESN, ESPN or local affiliates when Patriots play at home.
> 
> Not just in sports, I think all HBO, Showtime etc should be available to all regardless of who they subscribe with, the company would make more by having more subscriptions. Except of course the company that is monopolizing it would lose some viewership.


I don't understand the comparison. The world series is open to all, the Super bowl is open to all.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

HDhysteria said:


> I don't understand the comparison. The world series is open to all, the Super bowl is open to all.


That's true, however if you live in the region of your favorite team you get the games mostly from local affiliates for free, and or regional sports networks like NESN, ESPN without needing sports packs.


----------



## Ken984 (Jan 1, 2006)

Who can't get HBO or Showtime? 
We will see how much the others are willing to pay because the NFL goes with the highest bidder(and they HAVE to be able to deliver nationally), and that leaves E* and D*(I guess InDemand could bid and make it available to ALL cable systems, but that still won't have the extra reach that DBS does), E* will not step up, the NFL just isn't compelling enough for Charlie to open his purse that wide.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Ken984 said:


> Who can't get HBO or Showtime?
> We will see how much the others are willing to pay because the NFL goes with the highest bidder(and they HAVE to be able to deliver nationally), and that leaves E* and D*(I guess InDemand could bid and make it available to ALL cable systems, but that still won't have the extra reach that DBS does), E* will not step up, the NFL just isn't compelling enough for Charlie to open his purse that wide.


Let me clarify, Some carriers are not allowed to carry HBO Comedy etc. One company should not monopolize a channel and say only for themselves. DirecTV can't get HBO Comedy now because cable companies have monopolized it.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

I've never understood the uproar about ST only being on D*. Why can't the NFL choose which carrier it wants to contract with? If some consumers can't get D* (and consequently ST) because of LOS, etc., then that's the NFL's lost viewers/revenue. Their choice.

Of course, the NFL whining about NFLN is not helping their image....:nono2:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

On the flip side....

The NFL could just END Sunday Ticket all together, and go back to you just getting the games you see on your local affiliates.

It's the NFL's property... and they are well within their rights to distribute it however they want.

If they choose to accept a BILLION dollar contrat from DirecTV (which is probably what the 2011 renewal is going to be).... that is their choice.


----------



## Ken984 (Jan 1, 2006)

jtn said:


> Let me clarify, Some carriers are not allowed to carry HBO Comedy etc. One company should not monopolize a channel and say only for themselves. DirecTV can't get HBO Comedy now because cable companies have monopolized it.


Where did you get that info from?
It is my understanding that HBO Comedy isn't on D* because D* has never signed up for it, it is not exclusive to anyone else. The only truly exclusive channels I am aware of are Mojo and Comcast Sportsnet Philly. Mojo is available but its obvious that cable(Comcast, TW) have made the contract price way too high for anyone else to be interested(it is tied to the number of DIGITAL customers on a system, which makes it very expensive for either D* or E* since ALL customers are digital), CSN Philly is not available due to the loophole in the law regarding its delivery system.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

davemayo said:


> I've never understood the uproar about ST only being on D*. Why can't the NFL choose which carrier it wants to contract with? If some consumers can't get D* (and consequently ST) because of LOS, etc., then that's the NFL's lost viewers/revenue. Their choice.
> 
> Of course, the NFL whining about NFLN is not helping their image....:nono2:


Since D* pays the NFL a set fee for NFL ST, they (the NFL) lose nothing if D* can't sell enough ST subs to cover the fee. Also, one of the reasons that ST is o n D* in the first place is because the NFL wants to limit access to it as to not annoy the networks. There are about 1.6 million NFL ST subs, which works out to just break even for D*.


----------



## Wrister17 (Jul 23, 2007)

jtn said:


> It's interesting the World Series was open to all, but not football. I enjoy football and don't have Sunday Ticket, but I can still get some games via NESN, ESPN or local affiliates when Patriots play at home.


Maybe I misunderstood, but NO Patriots games are broadcast on NESN. NFL is only shown on CBS/ESPN/FOX/NBC.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> On the flip side....
> 
> The NFL could just END Sunday Ticket all together, and go back to you just getting the games you see on your local affiliates.
> 
> ...


My point exactly, Earl. Well said.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> If they choose to accept a BILLION dollar contrat from DirecTV (which is probably what the 2011 renewal is going to be).... that is their choice.


A BILLION dollar contract would be REALLY bad news for those of us that subscribe to ST. Since the number of ST subs is inherently limited by the number of D* subs, that much of an increase in the fee from D* to the NFL would yield a sustantial increase in the cost to the consumer. That increase, would, in turn, reduce the subscriber set further, pushing the cost up again.......vicious circle. There is noy way that D* can pay that and have ST continue for very long. That, I feel, would be the beginning of the end of NFL ST.


----------



## JDubbs413 (Sep 4, 2007)

It will be very tough for cable providers to get enough bandwidth just broadcast the SD channels. Forget the HD channels if you have cable.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

hilmar2k said:


> Since D* pays the NFL a set fee for NFL ST, they (the NFL) lose nothing if D* can't sell enough ST subs to cover the fee. Also, one of the reasons that ST is o n D* in the first place is because the NFL wants to limit access to it as to not annoy the networks. There are about 1.6 million NFL ST subs, which works out to just break even for D*.


You are right. This has to do with the affiliates being able to sell local advertising during NFL games. If you are in Seattle, watching the Dolphins game, local Miami adversting during that game is of no interest to you, and therefore of little interest to those buying the advertising.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Cable needs to put up or shut up. Last renewal Comcast and their like told the NFL to go pound sand because they didn't want to pay. Then they cry like babies that "big bad DirecTV has exclusive and NFL is a bully". Bull S***. They can easily have Sunday Ticket and not DirecTV if they wanted it.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> On the flip side....
> 
> The NFL could just END Sunday Ticket all together, and go back to you just getting the games you see on your local affiliates.
> 
> ...


Earl,

That's true, but the NFL also has an antitrust exemption and the goodwill that buys them new stadiums in many markets to protect.
That exemption is what allows them to negotiate those TV contracts...rather than having each team do their own deal locally like they do in MLB.

BTW, at what point does the NFL price Sunday Ticket out of reach for its fans? We're getting close to $350 with the HD package. Will fans go $500?


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

hilmar2k said:


> A BILLION dollar contract would be REALLY bad news for those of us that subscribe to ST. Since the number of ST subs is inherently limited by the number of D* subs, that much of an increase in the fee from D* to the NFL would yield a sustantial increase in the cost to the consumer. That increase, would, in turn, reduce the subscriber set further, pushing the cost up again.......vicious circle. There is noy way that D* can pay that and have ST continue for very long. That, I feel, would be the beginning of the end of NFL ST.


With Congress supposedly showing some interest in this issue, it will be real interesting come renewal time.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Let us not forget the value of ST in attracting and retaining subscribers.

I don't know the math, but ST is worth a lot more than simply the amount paid per subscriber. How many times have you seen "I'd switch providers if not for ST..."

It could very well be that all, or most, of the increase in cost to D* could be offset by that advantage.


----------



## mhking (Oct 28, 2002)

jtn said:


> It's interesting the World Series was open to all, but not football. I enjoy football and don't have Sunday Ticket, but I can still get some games via NESN, ESPN or local affiliates when Patriots play at home.
> 
> I was able to watch most of the Red Sox games on NESN HD too without buying any sports packages per se. Same with Patriots games. It seems if it's a team in your region, you don't need the sports pack if that is the team you want to watch.
> 
> Not just in sports, I think all HBO Comedy and other HBO channels, Showtime has other channels, etc should be available to all regardless of who they subscribe with, the company would make more by having more subscriptions. Except of course the company that is monopolizing it would lose some viewership.


Apples and oranges. Home NFL team games are available (unless they're blacked out - like the Falcons will likely be this week) to home markets, just as baseball is. Out of market baseball requires Extra Innings. Out of market NFL requires Sunday Ticket.

Only difference is Sunday Ticket's exclusivity -- and at least for now, I don't see the problem, other than the competitive advantage it gives DirecTV (which is not a problem. That's how business works.)....


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

paulman182 said:


> Let us not forget the value of ST in attracting and retaining subscribers.
> 
> I don't know the math, but ST is worth a lot more than simply the amount paid per subscriber. How many times have you seen "I'd switch providers if not for ST..."
> 
> It could very well be that all, or most, of the increase in cost to D* could be offset by that advantage.


Some people think that D* would crash and burn if it lost ST. I'm not so sure about that. What do others think?


----------



## ccr1958 (Aug 29, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Earl,
> 
> That's true, but the NFL also has an antitrust exemption and the goodwill that buys them new stadiums in many markets to protect.
> That exemption is what allows them to negotiate those TV contracts...rather than having each team do their own deal locally like they do in MLB.
> ...


$500...count me out


----------



## mhking (Oct 28, 2002)

Ken S said:


> Earl,
> 
> That's true, but the NFL also has an antitrust exemption and the goodwill that buys them new stadiums in many markets to protect.
> That exemption is what allows them to negotiate those TV contracts...rather than having each team do their own deal locally like they do in MLB.
> ...


The antitrust exemption in relation to protected markets is not exclusive to the NFL -- All four pro leagues use their so-called exclusivity to protect their home teams and their television franchises. After all, it gives them freedom to make money from television and online video.

I'm a rabid fan, and if the price point were lower, would happily pay for Sunday Ticket, but I have so far refused to pay the DirecTV price. That's my choice. Sorry, the government does not have an obligation to "protect" the leagues (much as they don't have a mandate to protect local television stations -- i.e., distant locals, but I digress). If the leagues want my dollar, then they have to compete for it, just like any other business.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

davemayo said:


> Some people think that D* would crash and burn if it lost ST. I'm not so sure about that. What do others think?


I doubt it, those who want DirecTV to have exclusivity may use that as a scare tactic. They were fine when they didn't have exclusivity.


----------



## mhking (Oct 28, 2002)

davemayo said:


> Some people think that D* would crash and burn if it lost ST. I'm not so sure about that. What do others think?


Nope - the Sunday Ticket subscribers are not what is bolstering DirecTV. It's a nice plus, and it lends a fantastic addition to the product portfolio, but it's not the be-all-end-all of D*.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

mhking said:


> Nope - the Sunday Ticket subscribers are not what is bolstering DirecTV. It's a nice plus, and it lends a fantastic addition to the product portfolio, but it's not the be-all-end-all of D*.


That's what I think as well. Maybe too much marketing hype....


----------



## jameswei (Oct 19, 2006)

ST is big time with businesses. Check out a sports book in Las Vegas on a Sunday. They have every game going all over the casino, multiple TVs everywhere. Same think for sports bars. They'd lose a lot of business on a Sunday without the ST. You'd be suprised how many people depend on that environment to see their team play.


----------



## ClubSteeler (Sep 27, 2005)

Once you honor your commitment with D*, cancel total choice and keep NFLST. Then every year, NFLST will auto-renew for you. I have been doing this for years. Every Sunday during football season, I pull out the D* receiver, watch my steelers game, and put it away.

If you read the D* terms and conditions, it states, and I quote:

"To receive sports programming and to order pay per view by remote, a DIRECTV subscription is required (except stand-alone NFL SUNDAY TICKET renewals) "



It's a catch-22. You need to have Total Choice to get NFLST. To get Total choice, you need to activate a receiver. To activate a receiver, you get locked into a 1 or 2 year commitment.

However, once you satisfy that commitment, then you have more power..


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

jameswei said:


> ST is big time with businesses. Check out a sports book in Las Vegas on a Sunday. They have every game going all over the casino, multiple TVs everywhere. Same think for sports bars. They'd lose a lot of business on a Sunday without the ST. You'd be suprised how many people depend on that environment to see their team play.


That's the point, people regardless of who they subscribe with shouldn't have to go to the local bar or casino to watch the programs they want.


----------



## cruxer (Nov 11, 2006)

jtn said:


> A few interesting articles about some who feel Sunday Ticket should be open to all carriers (carriers= DirecTV,Comcast,Dish Network, Verizon FiOS, & AT&T Uverse):
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071030
> http://consumerist.com/consumer/mon...directv-nfl-sunday-ticket-monopoly-317053.php


The ESPN guy is very disingenuous in his arguments. I, even as a D* customer, would love to see Sunday Ticket go to more providers, if only to bring some competition and reduce (hopefully) prices. I'm currently priced out of buying it at $350/yr.

But I can't abide by these quotes from the article:
"...This price would make the NFL Network, a seasonal product for a specialized audience, one of the most expensive items in the national cable universe. ESPN, which is to cable what cheeseburgers are to McDonald's, charges $30 to $35 per year for multiple channels with very broad appeal. CNN charges about $5 a year to the cable carriers.."

I would be willing to bet that ESPN's demo numbers are really similar to NFLN. I know plenty of people with cable/sat who NEVER watch ESPN, because they aren't sports fans, yet they subsidize the $30-35 yearly cost through their basic cable/sat package fees. This guy has no problem with that, but blasts NFLN for wanting similar treatment. He'd have a better argument if he said both ESPN and NFLN should be on a sports tier.

"A decade ago, observers thought satellite television would supplant cable, but this hasn't happened. Satellite TV's technical limits (not only can millions not receive it but the signal pixelates in rain) have proved a bigger obstacle than once assumed..."

I don't think I even need to address this fallacy on this forum.

"...Sunday Ticket is offered on cable in Canada and Mexico, plus offered via Yahoo broadband everywhere in the world except the United States. So most American taxpayers who paid for the stadia that make NFL profits possible can't watch the games they choose -- but anyone in Canada, Mexico or Liechtenstein is free to watch any NFL game."

I live in Greenville, SC, so it's unlikely I've paid ANY taxes to subsidize any pro stadiums, since there aren't any in SC. Additionally, my "local" team, the Panthers, typically would have their ST games blacked out for me, and I would need to watch them on my local affiliate. If you're watching out-of-market games, it's not likely that your tax money has contributed materially to the stadium where the game is being played. Local team games are usually carried by the local affiliate, not ST.

There's more, but I have to do some work at some point. 

-c


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

jtn said:


> That's true, however if you live in the region of your favorite team you get the games mostly from local affiliates for free, and or regional sports networks like NESN, ESPN without needing sports packs.


If you're talking MLB, that's not true in my area. The only MLB games available without a multichannel provider for me are the Saturday FOX games and their Post-Season coverage and that's a Grade B signal. Now, if folks want the first round of Playoffs and the NLCS, they _have_ to have cable, sat, or FIOS.

As far as the NFL, like I said before, FOX is Grade B and so is CBS. The only games I get for free are the SNF broadcasts.

Ken H hit the nail on the head as far as the NFL's reason for choosing DIRECTV. If they ever capture a good size of the market share, maybe the rules will change. I think you'll see more and more Sports going the Pay TV route anyway.


----------



## mhking (Oct 28, 2002)

jtn said:


> That's the point, people regardless of who they subscribe with shouldn't have to go to the local bar or casino to watch the programs they want.


If they want it, quite simply, they will pay for it.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

davemayo said:


> Some people think that D* would crash and burn if it lost ST. I'm not so sure about that. What do others think?


I don't think it is essential to the life of D* but I do think it has much value beyond simply the money it brings in directly.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

hilmar2k said:


> A BILLION dollar contract would be REALLY bad news for those of us that subscribe to ST. Since the number of ST subs is inherently limited by the number of D* subs, that much of an increase in the fee from D* to the NFL would yield a sustantial increase in the cost to the consumer. That increase, would, in turn, reduce the subscriber set further, pushing the cost up again.......vicious circle. There is noy way that D* can pay that and have ST continue for very long. That, I feel, would be the beginning of the end of NFL ST.


1 BILLION would only be about 200 Million more then they paid for the last contract...

It would all depend on how many years the contrat was for.

Based on the current subscription numbers..... even a $50 or $100 increase in the cost... probably isn't going to hurt Sunday Ticket.

But we will see in 2010/2011 when the contract goes up for renewal.


----------



## jfalkingham (Dec 6, 2005)

I don't get all of this....

If I own the rights, and you pay me the most, then I give you the access. The whole MLB extra innings thing rubbed me the wrong way too. Pretty communistic for a government to tell a content owner he must sell the package to all bidders. It's not like you are blacked out of your home team. You want the out of market stuff, then DIRECTV or any other carrier should have the right to sign exclusive deals at mega bucks and use that as an exclusive marketing arrangement. NFLST should go to the highest bidder. 

You want the content, pay for it. Free T.V. is not free, someone is paying for it.


----------



## jameswei (Oct 19, 2006)

bidger said:


> If you're talking MLB, that's not true in my area. The only MLB games available without a multichannel provider for me are the Saturday FOX games and their Post-Season coverage and that's a Grade B signal. Now, if folks want the first round of Playoffs and the NLCS, they _have_ to have cable, sat, or FIOS.
> 
> As far as the NFL, like I said before, FOX is Grade B and so is CBS. The only games I get for free are the SNF broadcasts.
> 
> Ken H hit the nail on the head as far as the NFL's reason for choosing DIRECTV. If they ever capture a good size of the market share, maybe the rules will change. I think you'll see more and more Sports going the Pay TV route anyway.


I agree, if ST leaves D* it will probably end up in some form of PPV or on-demand PPV, but it must remain available nationally.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

jfalkingham said:


> I don't get all of this....
> 
> If I own the rights, and you pay me the most, then I give you the access. The whole MLB extra innings thing rubbed me the wrong way too. Pretty communistic for a government to tell a content owner he must sell the package to all bidders. It's not like you are blacked out of your home team. You want the out of market stuff, then DIRECTV or any other carrier should have the right to sign exclusive deals at mega bucks and use that as an exclusive marketing arrangement. NFLST should go to the highest bidder.
> 
> You want the content, pay for it. Free T.V. is not free, someone is paying for it.


Those whining the loudest about ST supposedly can't get D* because of LOS or other issues. So, they don't have the choice, even if they would be willing to pay $$$$. Again, I see that as NFL's choice. They decided (for a number of reasons, some of which are discussed earlier in this thread) to limit the number of people who can get ST.


----------



## Chuck W (Mar 26, 2002)

Ken984 said:


> Who can't get HBO or Showtime?
> We will see how much the others are willing to pay because the NFL goes with the highest bidder(and they HAVE to be able to deliver nationally), and that leaves E* and D*(I guess InDemand could bid and make it available to ALL cable systems, but that still won't have the extra reach that DBS does), E* will not step up, the NFL just isn't compelling enough for Charlie to open his purse that wide.


Not really. The way I understand it is Directv has in their contract an exclusive negotiatiing window. So Directv gets to negotiate with the NFL first. If the 2 side cannot agree on the next contract, then and only then will negotiations open up to the highest bidder, per se.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

On the other/other side of the coin (the third side).

Would Sunday Ticket exist if it wsn't for DirecTV?

When it was first introduced... Could DishNetwork have done it?
None of the cable-co's could have, as at the time... there was probably tripple the number of cable companies.... they would have needed something similar to what they do now with MLBEI... a "top level" company to get the rights.

I don't even think the CableCo's could do it today... they are already clamoring to try and find more bandwith for basic HD channels... let alone 8 SD and 8 HD.... And given the Cable-Co model (which is still regional head ends, and custom for each one)... it would be very difficult.

DishNetwork... maybe... maybe could stuff it in (like DirecTV does, but shutting down some channels)....

AT&T HomeZone... Can't see it... Can't see the NFL agreeing to them carrying it, as AT&T HomeZone future is not "great"... there are fundimental limitation in their technology as it is today...

FiOS... They have the bandwith, but do they have the penetration?

-------------

Look at it from the NFL side of things:

1 Exclusive Carrier
1 LARGE guaranteed "payment"
1 carrier to worry about with regards to "distribution"
1 carrier that has been doing it for almost 10 years, and they know what they are getting
1 carrier that is also writing very big checks for advertising spots..

What is the benefit to the NFL allowing other carriers?
The marginal increase in subscribers?

Do you think if COMCAST starting offering a $350 Sunday Ticket package... the number of subscribes would drastically increase enough ? 

Once you go to a multi-carrier based method... You introduce a lot of the EI arguments we had earlier this year:

1) Smaller amounts from each carrier paid to the NFL... that would be a base fee, then an amount based on subscription revenuews
2) NFL has to do most of the advertising for it, as no one carrier is going to advertise Sunday Ticket as a "general" product
3) Inconsistancies in different markets (very difficult to manage and keep track of each and every individual regional cable-co... )
4) Incosistancy in new features of the service (like the RedZone channel, interactive, and other future planned things)

So while on the surface it "seems" like a no brainer to open it up to more carriers.... take a few steps back... and look at the entire table..... there is a lot more too it, then the "perks" of a few more subscribers...


----------



## jfalkingham (Dec 6, 2005)

davemayo said:


> Those whining the loudest about ST supposedly can't get D* because of LOS or other issues. So, they don't have the choice, even if they would be willing to pay $$$$.


*I hear that and second your opinion it is the NFL's choice. *

They are limited, only by where they chose to live. They want it bad enough, then move. They are not required to be where they are. May sound unrealistic, but seriously, does the NFL or any content owner need to change a business model because you have a L.O.S issue? I had to spend a good deal of money and time in finding a spot on my property where I can get all 5 sats. Some had to run multiple dishes and multi-switches (at their own expense) to get the programming they choose. To those who can't get a signal and whine that the government should force the NFL to open sunday ticket to every carrier - BOO HOO


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Okay... I just got done reading one of the two articles on the topic.... 

Here is the solution... why open it up to any other carriers?

Just eliminate the Affiliate Model for local channels... eliminate the "local area" monopoly of you can only get our channel.

FCC eliminate that rule... DirecTV (and other carriers) simply carry ever single local affiliate in the country, and grant access to everyone...

You can get any game for any sport for any market... you eliminate ALL of those stones with one swoop... and elminate a lot of the other issues as well.

If you are going to change it... go full tilt... go for the 85yrd touchdown... not just a first down....

And yes... that is utopia/fantasy land... 

My guess... is some puffy chest writers, want to take insert a stick into a tiny crack opened by the EI mess earlier this year, and see if they can pry it into something.

Bottom line... nothing is changing till at least 2011 without government involvment... and lord helps us if it gets to that point, as we all know that will meen nothing good to any consumer.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> 1 BILLION would only be about 200 Million more then they paid for the last contract...
> 
> It would all depend on how many years the contrat was for.
> 
> ...


1 BILLION is 250% of what they paid for the last contract.


----------



## BJM (Dec 9, 2006)

ST is a "loss leader" for D*. Perhaps they hope that D* will take off in the future so that even if they have to fork over billions to "keep" ST, there will be enough subs to keep the price down.

No one has a right to see whatever game they want on free TV. There are 2-4 games available every weekend on broadcast TV; 3-5 if you count ESPN, 4-6 when NFLN goes live after turkey day. Local fans can always see their games except when home games aren't sold out. (I think that last rule is silly in this day and age, but that's the NFL's position, to protect the local teams.)


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

davemayo said:


> Some people think that D* would crash and burn if it lost ST. I'm not so sure about that. What do others think?


No chance. D* has 16 million subs, with 1.6 million subscribing to ST. So even if they lost say 50% of the ST subs, that still only represents a 5% loss is subscriber base. I seriously doubt that would cripple D*.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

hilmar2k said:


> 1 BILLION is 250% of what they paid for the last contract.


Umm....
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2004/11/nfl_signs_new_television_contract/

DirecTV paid: $3.5 billion for a 5 year extension
So... $700 million a year

So going to a $1 Billion a year... would be a 45% increase... not 250%

Which could translate into a $100-$150 increase in the subscriber cost to Sunday Ticket in 2011...
(I said COULD not will)


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

BJM said:


> ST is a "loss leader" for D*. Perhaps they hope that D* will take off in the future so that even if they have to fork over billions to "keep" ST, there will be enough subs to keep the price down.
> 
> No one has a right to see whatever game they want on free TV. There are 2-4 games available every weekend on broadcast TV; 3-5 if you count ESPN, 4-6 when NFLN goes live after turkey day. Local fans can always see their games except when home games aren't sold out. (I think that last rule is silly in this day and age, but that's the NFL's position, to protect the local teams.)


The problem is that the NFL likes the limited availability to ST that D* affords. I don't think that the NFL would be happy if suddenlt 5 million people subscribed. Isn't it Fox that wanted ST sub count maxed at 1 million?


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Umm....
> http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2004/11/nfl_signs_new_television_contract/
> 
> DirecTV paid: $3.5 billion for a 5 year extension
> ...


The ESPN article said that D* bid $400 million. And by the way, I said it would be 250% of what they pay now, not a 250% increase. Different math.



> By 2004, DirecTV worried that if it lost Sunday Ticket, it would deorbit and go out of business. So DirecTV bid about $400 million a year for Sunday Ticket, a fantastic sum --


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071030


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

hilmar2k said:


> The ESPN article said that D* bid $400 million.
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071030


No problem... but then using those numbers:

$400m a year to $700m a year: 75% increase

So going from $700m to $1b a year: 45% increase

Not to "far fetched"...


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> On the flip side....
> 
> The NFL could just END Sunday Ticket all together, and go back to you just getting the games you see on your local affiliates.
> 
> ...


Absolutely. It's their investment, they can manage it as they wish. They aren't stupid and they have a great contract (NFL).

It is a big (single item) draw for D*. If the NFL thought they could make more money by opening it up, they would do it in a heartbeat.

I will say this, if E* got the sole rights to NFL ST, I wouldn't be switching, even though I'm an NFL fan. What is more likely to drive me away from NFL-ST is the ever escalating large increases for the programming. It's a wonderful package, but it is getting *really* pricey. If it were cheaper (ha!) from another provider, would I switch? No.

NFL-ST is just one aspect of my TV viewing. If I were "stuck" with just OTA NFL, I could live with it just fine...there's only so much time in a day/week (with DVR).

There are plenty of sports alternatives, including NCAA football. That combined with what I can get from networks like ESPN and the "Majors", would be something I could be satisfied with. That's why I'm strongly considering dropping NFL-ST/NFL SuperFan for next year. I'm just not sure it's worth it (to me) any longer. Way too costly, not enough utility, plenty of less costly, if not free alternatives.

When it was a hundred bucks, it seemed like a deal. We've come a long way from that figure (with some nice additional features, I will admit). I'm just starting to feel "played out" when it comes to NFL-ST. (and I realize that D* is not the primary cause of the price increases....I'm not blaming them)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

hilmar2k said:


> The ESPN article said that D* bid $400 million.
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071030


Well damm shame that he didn't do his homework and find out that the contract was renewed at higher $$$ amounts...
Took me 15 seconds to do a google search to find a link...

Kinda just dimishes the value of his argument since the numbers are a bit out of wack.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Well damm shame that he didn't do his homework and find out that the contract was renewed at higher $$$ amounts...
> Took me 15 seconds to do a google search to find a link...
> 
> Kinda just dimishes the value of his argument since the numbers are a bit out of wack.


Yup, sure does. Teaches me not to listen to ESPN about anything non-sports related.


----------



## saleen351 (Mar 28, 2006)

The cable companies will be worth 50% of their current value in 2011.. Never before have they faces so much competition.. 

I pay 338 bucks for my NFLST, i'm willing to pay 500!

I WANT TO HUG THE RED ZONE CHANNEL. IT'S A GIFT FROM GOD!

ok, gotta run and go "maintain" my dish, need to lube it up, clean it off, fresh sanding then primer then 3 coats of paint, then realignment...


----------



## chopperjc (Oct 2, 2006)

jameswei said:


> ST is big time with businesses. Check out a sports book in Las Vegas on a Sunday. They have every game going all over the casino, multiple TVs everywhere. Same think for sports bars. They'd lose a lot of business on a Sunday without the ST. You'd be suprised how many people depend on that environment to see their team play.


You should see my apartment!


----------



## Ken984 (Jan 1, 2006)

The price is getting out of hand, I thought about canceling before the season started but there were 6 weeks in question as to which team I would be watching locally if I did, my team or some scrub team. I did not want to have to go to a bar 6 weeks to see MY team, I figured that was worth the $ *this* year.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

chopperjc said:


> You should see my apartment!


Post some pictures of your apartment.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

I have an excuse: I'm a Bears fan. I wouldn't walk across the street to watch them play. (at their current level of non-execution). I'm a fan, not a masochist.


----------



## Jazzmo (Aug 1, 2007)

Love Sunday Ticket but the cost is getting dangerously close to being too expensive for me. Especially when it continues to get diluted by things like flex game that will take better matchups late in the season and move them to MNF.

I have Super Fan but I got it free this year. If I cannot get HD games as part of ST next year or again get SF free, I might have to say goodbye to ST. I don't want to watch the games in SD after having HD this year. Just too much money for me to justify if I have to spend more for HD.


----------



## Packersrule (Sep 10, 2007)

For me it was simple math = The packers are not shown nationally about 10 times a year. It costs me about 35 dollars at the bar plus talking my wife into dropping my off and picking me up. That cost me about 350 dollars a year.

Directv always seems to have some deal for ST like 69.00 for all channels so it's not even close. I don't know how much above 350 I would be willing to pay.


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

Does anyone really think that if the NFL offered ST to all carriers the price would actually go down? They have already seen that the market will bear between $250-$350/year, why would it be lowered? The NFL hasn't budged off of it's $7-$9 price for NFLN on a basic tier for cablecos.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cariera said:


> Does anyone really think that if the NFL offered ST to all carriers the price would actually go down? They have already seen that the market will bear between $250-$350/year, why would it be lowered? The NFL hasn't budged off of it's $7-$9 price for NFLN on a basic tier for cablecos.


Almost a guarantee that it would go up...

As all those other carriers would most certainly have to cover a:
-) Base flat fee to the NFL
-) Amount based on Subscriber cost
-) Pay for all the infrastructure costs (which on a cable-co... may be multiple times over for each region)
-) Pay for the marketting for it on THEIR network
-) ect.....


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

hasan said:


> That's why I'm strongly considering dropping NFL-ST/NFL SuperFan for next year. I'm just not sure it's worth it (to me) any longer. Way too costly, not enough utility, plenty of less costly, if not free alternatives.
> 
> When it was a hundred bucks, it seemed like a deal. We've come a long way from that figure (with some nice additional features, I will admit). I'm just starting to feel "played out" when it comes to NFL-ST. (and I realize that D* is not the primary cause of the price increases....I'm not blaming them)


I chose to go to D* 10 years ago because of ST when I moved away from my hometown market. Once the price went way up, and I had three kids with soccer games, etc. on Sundays, I dropped ST two years ago. Did I even consider leaving D*? Not a chance. Of course, if the price came back down, I might reconsider.


----------



## Jazzmo (Aug 1, 2007)

I too would stick with DirecTV even if I dropped ST. There will just reach a point, for me, where I could not justify that expense anymore. Its an entertainment item and I can only afford so much towards entertainment items. 

Kind of like going to the movies. I used to go 1 or 2 times a month years ago when the prices were reasonable or at least reasonable to me, but I cannot afford doing that anymore. It just became too expensive. 

I just wonder how much would ST have to cost before most of the subs decide its just too expensive.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

And now that I've moved to HD, there's even more reason to go back to ST, but the cost will increase as well.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

I refused to pay for it this year, got Game Plan instead, next year who knows, since I get the Big 10 and Michigan is always on my locals, and very few USC, LSU games on Gameplan maybe just drop it too and pray for Mountain or Oregon Sports channels to pop up.


----------



## meller (Oct 4, 2007)

jtn said:


> Let me clarify, Some carriers are not allowed to carry HBO Comedy etc. One company should not monopolize a channel and say only for themselves. DirecTV can't get HBO Comedy now because cable companies have monopolized it.


Hi JTN,

I noticed in your description of your setup that you have the ability to record 3 programs at once, 2 from sat and 1 from OTA. I have HR20-700 like you, with OTA enabled (using a ChannelMaster antenna on my roof). What do I need to do to have the same capabilities (record 3 programs) that you have?

Thanks,

Mark


----------



## bonscott (May 1, 2007)

Jazzmo said:


> Love Sunday Ticket but the cost is getting dangerously close to being too expensive for me. Especially when it continues to get diluted by things like flex game that will take better matchups late in the season and move them to MNF.
> 
> I have Super Fan but I got it free this year. If I cannot get HD games as part of ST next year or again get SF free, I might have to say goodbye to ST. I don't want to watch the games in SD after having HD this year. Just too much money for me to justify if I have to spend more for HD.


the flex game gets moved to sunday night not monday night.


----------



## Ken984 (Jan 1, 2006)

I would not leave D* either,just would prefer if HD games were part of the package instead of an add on, I paid for SF this year after swearing that I would not. Maybe next year I will have more of a backbone, lol.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

meller said:


> Hi JTN,
> 
> I noticed in your description of your setup that you have the ability to record 3 programs at once, 2 from sat and 1 from OTA. I have HR20-700 like you, with OTA enabled (using a ChannelMaster antenna on my roof). What do I need to do to have the same capabilities (record 3 programs) that you have?
> 
> ...


The validity of that claim is strongly disputed in another thread (don't have the time to search for it right now), but I would not consider that doing that is possible at all based on it being cited in his sig.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> On the other/other side of the coin (the third side).
> 
> Would Sunday Ticket exist if it wsn't for DirecTV?
> 
> ...


Earl, one tiny point to make in your great post. Yes, ST could exist. ST started on BUD and was the reason I started with a BUD. Until last year ST was still available on both BUD and DIRECTV. (Or was it two years ago now?)

Would SF exist? Perhaps. Earl's points about DIRECTV "owning" a product from a mindset point of view has given DIRECTV the ability to think outside "Just showin' da games" to building an experience. The Mix channels, the Redzone channels, interactive content, and the stuff we'll see next year...  All this came from DIRECTV's creativity.

Could the NFL hired a production company to "own" and build the product? Absolutely, you betcha. Could it have competed with the fantastic job DIRECTV has done? Sure, maybe, possibly, who knows? But what a wonderful job DIRECTV has done! 

And lastly, the exclusive window don't always mean the contract gets awarded. Just ask Fox, CBS, and NBC about "the year the NFL went to Fox" 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jazzmo (Aug 1, 2007)

bonscott said:


> the flex game gets moved to sunday night not monday night.


Sorry, my mistake. But it still dilutes ST by doing that.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> BTW, at what point does the NFL price Sunday Ticket out of reach for its fans? We're getting close to $350 with the HD package. Will fans go $500?


Good question. As much as I like the Sunday Ticket, there is a limit to how much I'm willing to pay for it. It's hard to believe they could go a lot higher without losing a lot of subscribers.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Getting myself back on back on topic - I think one of the biggest obstacles in the way of ST expanding beyond DirecTV, aside from the exclusive contract, is the HUGE money that the networks pay the NFL for carriage rights. If there was any significant expansion of the viewer base for ST (i.e. being available with other providers), the NFL would not get anywhere near the money from the networks that they get now. As Earl alluded to (and I'm assuming pretty much tongue-in-cheek) the only way around that would be dismantling the network/affiliate climate that exists - and I don't see that happening any time in my lifetime. Why would the networks pay that kind of money when the games are made available on cable/satellite to a HUGE segment of the national audience that would no longer need to watch on their local affiliate?

For me, after being told at Draft Weekend that I would be getting SF free (decade-long ST subscriber on auto-renew), then being billed for it when the time came and being told that's the way it would be (no free SF), I thought that's cool - DirecTV can choose to sell this how they want. I then inquired of my local CBS and FOX affiliates about what their NFL broadcast schedule was for this season. Between the games they were carrying locally and the games available on NBC, ESPN and NFLN, I really stepped back and saw that I had more then enough football to satisfy me without Sunday Ticket, so I cancelled ST all together.

Aside from my interest in maybe being able to see the Giants/Dolphins in England and a couple of rare instances like that, I really haven't missed it much at all. I also happen to be a Vikings fan living in the Twin Cities, so there is not the situation of being a displaced fan for which ST would be the only way to see "my team". To paraphrase, "I just saved a bundle on my ... DirecTV bill"!

As for pricing, I was also hitting the max out point, having had my income nearly cut in half within the last couple of years. Anything more than where they are at right now I could not justify. And not to unfairly characterize people, but I imagine the majority of the current ST subs are more your "Joe Six-Packs" than those corporate "luxury-box buying guys". In the same manner that actually attending the games live for the average fan has given way to the big money of corporations who now buy season tickets to entertain clients, etc., much more of a price increase on ST, I believe, will start to lose people who just can't justify the expense anymore. And I've never done drugs, but this year has shown me that I actually CAN make it through an NFL season without having to get my ST fix every Sunday.

Just one man's opinion.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> The validity of that claim is strongly disputed in another thread (don't have the time to search for it right now), but I would not consider that doing that is possible at all based on it being cited in his sig.


Off topic, I realize, but here is that thread.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1251548#post1251548


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2007)

cariera said:


> Does anyone really think that if the NFL offered ST to all carriers the price would actually go down? They have already seen that the market will bear between $250-$350/year, why would it be lowered? The NFL hasn't budged off of it's $7-$9 price for NFLN on a basic tier for cablecos.


It probably wouldn't go down, but it might not go up as much. Look at the pricing for MLBEI over the past few years and compare it to NFLST. The price of MLBEI barely changes from one year to the next.

Can you please clarify what you mean by the "$7-$9 price for NFLN on a basic tier for cablecos"? I know the NFL isn't asking $7-$9 per subscriber.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

hilmar2k said:


> Off topic, I realize, but here is that thread.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1251548#post1251548


Thank you, sir!


----------



## PennHORN (Sep 13, 2007)

What is a BUD?


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> Aside from my interest in maybe being able to see the Giants/Dolphins in England and a couple of rare instances like that, I really haven't missed it much at all. I also happen to be a Vikings fan living in the Twin Cities, so there is not the situation of being a displaced fan for which ST would be the only way to see "my team". To paraphrase, "I just saved a bundle on my ... DirecTV bill"!


If I still ived in MA, there is no way I would pay for NFL ST, MLB EI, or NBA LP. The only reason I have them is to watch my teams, the Sox, Pats, and Celtics.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

I imagine, just based on what happened with EI this year and, IIRC, if EI was NOT exclusive to DirecTV that DirecTV would wind up paying less than if it was exclusive; that if Sunday Ticket went national with multiple providers that the NFL may get similar or more money, but DirecTV wouldn't pay anywhere what they do now with full exclusive rights.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

PennHORN said:


> What is a BUD?


I think it's "big ugly dish" as in those 6 foot monsters (C Band?).


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I think it's "big ugly dish" as in those 6 foot monsters (C Band?).


You are correct, sir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_ugly_dish


----------



## thepoloman33 (Jun 20, 2006)

Back in 2005 when DirecTV first introduced the extra Super Fan charge for ST, this thread popped up over at the dbsforums.com site (http://www.dbsforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=43371)

The posts by Dan Collins are very informative. In post #128, he summarizes things very well:

_As someone that has closely followed the history of NFL Sunday Ticket for many years, let me point out a few things (many of which have been pointed out previously):

1) The negotiations with the NFL are based upon them setting forth terms. The current licensee then has "right of first refusal." This means that they can take the deal, or make a counter offer. If, after a certain period of time, the two parties can not strike a deal, the package is then open to bids.

2) When NFLST became an exclusive, it was because the National Football League wanted it so. They decided that selling it to both DirecTV and C-Band was not the most productive pricing model. They also knew that NFLST helped DirecTV be more competitive against cable and Dish Network. They ALSO knew that Dish Network, starting that year, had the capacity to carry NFLST. So they offered NFLST as an exclusive to DirecTV. DirecTV would have been fools to refuse to pay the premium.

3) The broadcast networks have been pressuring the NFL to eliminate NFLST all together. They don't like paying the NFL obscene amounts of money, only to have viewers be able to pick which games they actually watch. The networks sell advertising time during NFL games for equally obscene rates, and they want to be able to tell advertisers EXACTLY how many viewers they are delivering and their demographics.

4) The broadcasters were particulaly upset over delivery of their HD feeds without any additional concessions or payment to them. They have come to view HD delivery as a competitive advantage over pay-tv. The premium payment for HD feeds was, therefore, THEIR idea.

5) While NFLST could, theoretically, be offered as a non-exclusive, it will never happen. The NFL knows that widespread availability of NFLST via cable and satellite will only serve to dilute their network revenue as well. This is their #1 priority. They will kill NFLST before they let it become universally available.

6) DirecTV certainly decides HOW to price NFLST. The minimum price is set by the value of the contract they have with the NFL. Given a schedule of payments that they must make to the NFL, they develop the most productive pricing model. That's what they have done. If it is not as productive as they hope, it will be adjusted next year. That's business._


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

The biggest competition to ST? The slingbox (and similar). I am a displaced fan (anyone need to guess? ) and have had ST for more than 10 years for that reason. Sling and Hava could give me something ST does not. Access to the local Green Bay programming about the Packers that I can't get anywhere else. (One coaches show is now on the web, but some of the best are not.) 

If I open that door to access those programs, I'm not far from just dropping ST/SF and doing that for game day too.

So DIRECTV has an opportunity. Get all the local coaches shows and present them on a more formalized and more timely basis. (Sunday, while I'm at church, for the show from last week's game, and only a few of the one coache's show I can get on the web, isn't good enough.)

Or go to a single team, single division, single conference packages. I'd actually would spend more money under that scenario as I'd give gifts to family who can't afford the whole ST.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> Can you please clarify what you mean by the "$7-$9 price for NFLN on a basic tier for cablecos"? I know the NFL isn't asking $7-$9 per subscriber.


They sure are, $7-9 per household is what the NFL wants.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

hilmar2k said:


> They sure are, $7-9 per household is what the NFL wants.


That is on an annual basis or about $.90 per household per month.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I think it's "big ugly dish" as in those 6 foot monsters (C Band?).


Six foot? Ehh..."real men" went with 8', 10' or even 12' dishes!

Actually, before NFL ST you could get most of the games on C-Band...with no commercials and getting to listen to the guys in the booth when they didn't think they were on the air. Just took a bit more tuning around.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Six foot? Ehh..."real men" went with 8', 10' or even 12' dishes!
> 
> Actually, before NFL ST you could get most of the games on C-Band...with no commercials and getting to listen to the guys in the booth when they didn't think they were on the air. Just took a bit more tuning around.


Yup, did that too (at my uncles house) before I could afford mine. Alas, the networks decided to encrypt their signals. 

Got some great coverage of the Indy 500, listening to the group talking about how to cover as they came out of break.

And caught a bit of a feed as Marc Shaiman was sending a reel of possible music compositions written for _First Wives Club_. I think I still have that on video tape.

I don't mind paying for ST and SF; that way I get a better experience overall.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## ben arnold (Aug 28, 2007)

E* won't have interest. Over the past 5 years they've scared away just about every sports fan they had. I'd be shocked if 10% of their existing customers would want NFLSD, let alone pay $350+ for it. Plus TV providers are like banks. You really have to be peaved off to switch your business elsewhere. Count Charlie out.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> Getting myself back on back on topic - I think one of the biggest obstacles in the way of ST expanding beyond DirecTV, aside from the exclusive contract, is the HUGE money that the networks pay the NFL for carriage rights. If there was any significant expansion of the viewer base for ST (i.e. being available with other providers), the NFL would not get anywhere near the money from the networks that they get now.


Simply not true. The contract for 2003-2007 was for $2 billion ($400M per year) and gave DirecTV 3 years of exclusive rights and two years of NON-EXCLUSIVE rights. It gave the NFL the right to sell the package to cable companies for the 2006 and 2007 seasons. The NFL wouldn't have made that deal if they didn't want to sell the package non-exclusive. The only reason it stayed exclusive after 2005 is that DirecTV ponied up substantially more money ($700M per year) to keep the deal exclusive.

The notion that the NFL would not get as much money from the networks with a non-exclusive ST package is also erroneous. The value of the NFL games to the networks is in the advertising, which is the same (as far as the network ads are concerned) whether the games are seen on local channels or on Sunday Ticket. Expansion of the viewer base would not make the package worth less to the networks.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> That is on an annual basis or about $.90 per household per month.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Thanks, Tom, that makes more sense. Subscriber charges are normally quoted per-month, not per-year.


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

davemayo said:


> Some people think that D* would crash and burn if it lost ST. I'm not so sure about that. What do others think?


I don't believe that, though I am a ST subscriber. I like D* for many reasons and would not have E*. The addition of more HD is smart for them, as it does give them something else, instead of relying on just sports fans that will not leave because they do not want to lose MLB or NFL, though MLB is not exclusive, not all other providers have it. I do believe that D* has a good portion of customers that only hang around for NFL ST, and if it were lost, or opened to others, sure they would lose some........does that mean the end of D*? NO WAY!

At $500, count me WAY out!!!! If it wasn't for free SF, I would have to think hard about how long I want to pay $328 or more ($229 was my ST renewal, $99 for SF), and it will go up from $328........how long will we pay increases???? Time will tell.....but it will not make it to $500 without alot of dropped subs WELL BEFORE it reaches that point!!


----------



## Rocker07 (Jul 1, 2007)

If D* loses ST then they have probably lost me also. It is really the only thing that keeps me from even looking at other providers. When I lost the DLB's because I had to "upgrade" to the HR20 I was ticked off, but not to the point of leaving because of one thing, the ST. Other providers will eventually catch up with the HD content so I figure that will not be an issue in the future, but no one else can allow me to see my team every sunday. Now, I will say that they are getting extremely close to Pricing themselves out of business and if the price goes much higher I will have to do a lot of soul searching too see if it is really worth it. I'd like to see them maybe offer a "one team" package at a reduced rate. With the lack of DLB's it's virtually impossible to follow more than one game anyway.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Earl, one tiny point to make in your great post. Yes, ST could exist. ST started on BUD and was the reason I started with a BUD. Until last year ST was still available on both BUD and DIRECTV. (Or was it two years ago now?)


5 actually, maybe even more. I believe it was 2002 contract that DirecTV had "satellite" exclusivity and then in 2005 they got total exclusivity.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> The notion that the NFL would not get as much money from the networks with a non-exclusive ST package is also erroneous. The value of the NFL games to the networks is in the advertising, which is the same (as far as the network ads are concerned) whether the games are seen on local channels or on Sunday Ticket. Expansion of the viewer base would not make the package worth less to the networks.


You're not correct there. There is a lot of value to the networks in the local affiliate being able to sell advertising. Having the NFL deal is what keeps many local affiliates with their network. When CBS and then NBC lost the NFL there were several channels that changed networks to keep the home team (Philadelphia had it happen for one).

The networks HAVE to keep the non O and Os happy and the sports deals are one way they do it.

In addition, the networks also receive a piece of the local ad sales during the games.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

As for cost, even as rabid a fantasy football fan I am I certainly have my limits, but I'd probably pay $300, maybe $400. I fight for free or reduced SuperFan every year.

But I minimize my costs by going on the monthly plan. Look for it in January and Feburary. I pay $20 or so a month for 11 months. This way I can budget it better and I also get a better sense as to what it really costs. So I go out to eat one less time a month and Sunday Ticket is paid for. Works for me!


----------



## rigelian (Jun 21, 2007)

I'm one of those fans that will go where the Sunday Ticket goes. I'm a Seahawks fan, but live in Berkeley. Strangely enough I didn't move to Directv because of the Sunday Ticket, (I got tired of Comcast's nonsense), but once here, I hooked. I like the service Directv provides, but the Sunday Ticket is one of those necessary elements.


----------



## marksman (Dec 23, 2006)

I seem to remember the early days being able to get the ST for like $99 or $129 a season.

I have not subscribed for years.. I get too much football as it is. I can see all the Cowboys games, most relevant division games, and any other big games are on primetime.

Used to be fun to do it, but even though I make a lot more money, I could not see paying the going rate for it now. I have a good friend who lives on the East Coast though, and he gets it for the Cowboys games. I would do the same thing. But that would be the only reason I would pay for it.

As for exclusivity I see no problem with it. I have a hard time believing the NFL could make more money by opening it up. The amount of money that DirecTV would be paying to the NFL for the rights would be a small fraction of what they are now... since everything would have to be relegated to flat subscriber fees. The current arrangement works best for the NFL and for DirecTV. Their competitors don't like it, and the people who don't want to get or can't get DirecTV don't like it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> You're not correct there. There is a lot of value to the networks in the local affiliate being able to sell advertising. Having the NFL deal is what keeps many local affiliates with their network. When CBS and then NBC lost the NFL there were several channels that changed networks to keep the home team (Philadelphia had it happen for one).
> 
> The networks HAVE to keep the non O and Os happy and the sports deals are one way they do it.
> 
> In addition, the networks also receive a piece of the local ad sales during the games.


Yes, I am correct there. If the NFL really felt a non-exclusive deal would make the network contracts less valuable, they wouldn't have agreed to a deal that was non-exclusive for the last two years of the contract. The notion that a non-exclusive deal makes the network contracts more valuable is just a theory that isn't supported by the facts.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

davemayo said:


> You are right. This has to do with the affiliates being able to sell local advertising during NFL games. If you are in Seattle, watching the Dolphins game, local Miami adversting during that game is of no interest to you, and therefore of little interest to those buying the advertising.


How many local ads are on during an NFL game on CBS or Fox? I would guess the few that are on are local car dealership ads and ads for local programming from the local station.


----------



## satexplorer (Feb 6, 2007)

No other company should get NFL Sunday Ticket, they'll abuse it. Leave DirecTV in charge and let you ppl cry again like babies. :lol:


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> Yes, I am correct there. If the NFL really felt a non-exclusive deal would make the network contracts less valuable, they wouldn't have agreed to a deal that was non-exclusive for the last two years of the contract. The notion that a non-exclusive deal makes the network contracts more valuable is just a theory that isn't supported by the facts.


Ah, but there was a clause for exclusivity that DirecTV excercised. That is why no one else picked it up. (Comcast sure would have...they still want it.)

Also, at the same time, the NFL got DirecTV to black out local games on ST (the SD versions used to be on unless a local game was not a sellout). This was to protect the local stations.

That is consistent with keeping the package limited to protect local affiliates.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

jtn said:


> It's interesting the World Series was open to all, but not football. I enjoy football and don't have Sunday Ticket, but I can still get some games via NESN, ESPN or local affiliates when Patriots play at home.


That logic is faulty... The World Series is "open to all" as is the SuperBowl. You're comparing a national championship to weekly out-of-market games.

Every week there are nationally aired football games and some locally aired games. Baseball works the same way.

D* has negotiated an exclusive contract with the NFL for ST. Are other providers jealous, undoubtedly.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> So DIRECTV has an opportunity. Get all the local coaches shows and present them on a more formalized and more timely basis. (Sunday, while I'm at church, for the show from last week's game, and only a few of the one coache's show I can get on the web, isn't good enough.)
> 
> Or go to a single team, single division, single conference packages. I'd actually would spend more money under that scenario as I'd give gifts to family who can't afford the whole ST.


That's a phenominal idea. There are definitely people who subscribe to ST to get ALL the games, the rest do so such as yourself who are displaced fans. I think D* could make more money overall by charging 1/2 to 1/3 the retail ST price to get games for the 1 team you are interested in. But the admin/overhead might be a nightmare...


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

mhking said:


> Nope - the Sunday Ticket subscribers are not what is bolstering DirecTV. It's a nice plus, and it lends a fantastic addition to the product portfolio, but it's not the be-all-end-all of D*.


It has been the reason that I stayed with D* the last time I had a choice and was going to upgrade.
However, it is getting to be a less and less valued package since more and more games it seems are not Sunday afternoon and I see that trend continuing. With Sunday night, Monday night and later on Thursday and Saturday and NFL network games, by the end of the season I really don't get that many more games. 
The price goes up every year and with having to pay additional for HD (which I think is wrong based on the HD package providing the HD version of everything you subscribe to in SD - and I don't care about the other summary channel), it gets very expensive for a few games that I want to see.
But I do think it is a key differentiator for D*.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Thaedron said:


> That's a phenominal idea. There are definitely people who subscribe to ST to get ALL the games, the rest do so such as yourself who are displaced fans. I think D* could make more money overall by charging 1/2 to 1/3 the retail ST price to get games for the 1 team you are interested in. But the admin/overhead might be a nightmare...


Single team has been THE most requested feature since NFL ST was only on C-band dishes. (Or so I've been told almost yearly.) 

At first the NFL claimed garbage like "We can't figure out how to distribute the money in that scenario". EQUALLY! is my trite and very simple answer. 

Admin/overhead shouldn't be too bad. Granted their would be some trick for a single division product, but for a large pie from which to draw their piece, I bet DIRECTV could do it. 

BTW, I do not believe this is DIRECTVs fault at all. As I said, the NFL has not figured this out since pre-DIRECTV NFL ST days.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Ah, but there was a clause for exclusivity that DirecTV excercised. That is why no one else picked it up. (Comcast sure would have...they still want it.)


Incorrect. DirecTV had to negotiate a new contract to keep the deal from going non-exclusive.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Cable needs to put up or shut up. Last renewal Comcast and their like told the NFL to go pound sand because they didn't want to pay. Then they cry like babies that "big bad DirecTV has exclusive and NFL is a bully". Bull S***. They can easily have Sunday Ticket and not DirecTV if they wanted it.


+1


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> (Comcast sure would have...they still want it.)


Actually no, they turned it down when they had the chance.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA480250.html

Cable crys like a baby about Sunday Ticket but any change they get to actually get it they punt. I have no sympathy for the cable industry on this one.


----------



## GP_23 (Sep 13, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Single team has been THE most requested feature since NFL ST was only on C-band dishes. (Or so I've been told almost yearly.)
> 
> At first the NFL claimed garbage like "We can't figure out how to distribute the money in that scenario". EQUALLY! is my trite and very simple answer.
> 
> ...


I would definately pay a fee just to be able to watch all Packers games! I thought at one time they did that with NBA League Pass?


----------



## vansmack (Aug 14, 2006)

Easterbrook has been complaining about this for years, and the only reason he does is because he wasn't able to get DirecTV due to tree limitations in his view of the southwestern sky. It has nothing to do with consumer rights - it's all about his limitations. 

You must always check his reasearch and facts too, because he makes flippant comments that his situation is the norm and not the exception:

"Meanwhile, Sunday Ticket remains available only to the select few whose places of dwelling have an unobstructed view of the southwest sky, where the DirecTV satellites hang."

Select few? I think it's the other way around.

And to the poster who said that Congress is taking note and will force a change - it's one Senator making noise and he's the Senator who represents Pennsylvania, home of Comcast. And his arguments fall on deaf ears every year.

Comcast is willing to pay, but only if the ST structure changes, so they can make more money. DirecTV uses it as a loss leader for subscriptions and have every right to do so. So put up or shut up.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Actually no, they turned it down when they had the chance.
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA480250.html
> 
> Cable crys like a baby about Sunday Ticket but any change they get to actually get it they punt. I have no sympathy for the cable industry on this one.


Thanks for the link, Scott. It's further proof that the NFL was willing to make a non-exclusive deal, which they wouldn't do if they believed it would "greatly reduce" the value of the network contracts, as others have suggested.


----------



## Smuuth (Oct 4, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> Actually no, they turned it down when they had the chance.
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA480250.html
> 
> Cable crys like a baby about Sunday Ticket but any change they get to actually get it they punt. I have no sympathy for the cable industry on this one.


Good link, bonscott!

I actually chose DIRECTV in 1995 because I was living in the Utah desert at the time and the local channel coverage on cable was from Salt Lake City. When the SLC station preempted the Broncos game to cover the LDS world conference, I called DIRECTV that day to subscribe. Of course I had to go buy my own dish and receiver and install them myself in those days.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Ken S said:


> Earl,
> 
> That's true, but the NFL also has an antitrust exemption and the goodwill that buys them new stadiums in many markets to protect.
> That exemption is what allows them to negotiate those TV contracts...rather than having each team do their own deal locally like they do in MLB.
> ...


That would be tough but $500 Id still be in.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Correct me if I'm wrong someone but either in the last negotiating cycle or more likely the one before didn't E* just about pay the feel for D* to renew it's ST contract by way of them having to pay off D* to walk away from the merger negotiations?!


----------



## schlar01 (Jul 16, 2007)

mhking said:


> Nope - the Sunday Ticket subscribers are not what is bolstering DirecTV. It's a nice plus, and it lends a fantastic addition to the product portfolio, but it's not the be-all-end-all of D*.


I would have never signed up if not for the ST. I probably wouldn't stay with D* if it went back to cable. I don't like the contracts and I don't have to sign a contract with cable. JMO.

Personally, I think it should be available anywhere. The only people losing in the exclusive monopoly deal are the consumers. Competition is good for everyone, which is why the government generally tries to break monopolies up instead of encouraging them. Monopolies lead to little consumer choice and poor prices, which in the end hurt consumers. This is the very reason the price of the ST has doubled.......no choice.


----------



## bigmac94 (Aug 18, 2006)

mhking said:


> Apples and oranges. Home NFL team games are available (unless they're blacked out - like the Falcons will likely be this week) to home markets, just as baseball is. Out of market baseball requires Extra Innings. Out of market NFL requires Sunday Ticket.
> 
> Only difference is Sunday Ticket's exclusivity -- and at least for now, I don't see the problem, other than the competitive advantage it gives DirecTV (which is not a problem. That's how business works.)....


Yeah.. xactly what he said!!


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> Thanks for the link, Scott. It's further proof that the NFL was willing to make a non-exclusive deal, which they wouldn't do if they believed it would "greatly reduce" the value of the network contracts, as others have suggested.


rcoleman,

I think we were talking cross purposes. The NFL may make a non-exclusive deal, but I don't believe they'll drop the subscriber cap. That's what the networks will care about.


----------



## BJM (Dec 9, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> The problem is that the NFL likes the limited availability to ST that D* affords. I don't think that the NFL would be happy if suddenlt 5 million people subscribed. Isn't it Fox that wanted ST sub count maxed at 1 million?


Oh, I wonder if D* all of a sudden dropped the subscription price to $99., if it thought it could get 3x as many subscribers to ST, would the NFL object? Do they have a right to?


----------



## steelerfanmike (Jun 18, 2007)

Here is a nice web site for everybody http://www.the506.com/nflmaps/


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

BJM said:


> Oh, I wonder if D* all of a sudden dropped the subscription price to $99., if it thought it could get 3x as many subscribers to ST, would the NFL object? Do they have a right to?


From what I have read there is a cap on how many ST subscribers that DirecTV can sign up. I don't think they have hit the cap in any season yet because they're still advertising.


----------



## Philby (Jul 25, 2007)

I don't think the admin on single team packages would be too difficult - just assign each team a channel and then D* would behind the scenes "map" that channel to wherever they're broadcasting that team's game (like they do with the 3 HBO HD channels). That way the channel number would stay the same allowing them to add it to people's programming and they wouldn't have to beam the game to 2 channels (1 for the home and away team) - it would even work for division packages.

I think if it was like $75, or $99 with HD you'd get a lot more subscribers, although I don't know if it would be enough to offset the number of subscribers who dropped down to the lower package. Anyone know how much a 1 day pass is - I would assume this package would be about the same price (on a non-bye week Sunday you get to see about 14 games, which is probably the same as 1 team's whole season if you estimate they'll be on Sunday/Monday night twice during the season)

And as to the number of people who can or can't get direcTV due to LOS issues - i think there are a LOT of people who live in big cities that can't point a dish towards the SW sky (or any sky for that matter). Imagine living in NY or Chicago and trying to point a dish through the building next to you. Also across America people who live in apts/condos that have to place any dish on their balcony (due to association rules against having them on roofs/lawn etc) cannot use satellite if their balcony is on the wrong side of the building...and there are also many buildings/neighborhoods that probably have rules against dishes completely. Even if you take buildings out of the equation, I remember my installer saying he didn't think I was going to have LOS because of the large trees in my neighborhood - but luckily I do!

So yes there are a lot of people who do have LOS - but there are also a lot of people who do not, or can't have a dish for some other reason.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

BJM said:


> Oh, I wonder if D* all of a sudden dropped the subscription price to $99., if it thought it could get 3x as many subscribers to ST, would the NFL object? Do they have a right to?


I'd jump all over it for $99, but that will never happen so no Sunday Ticket for me.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

That was the price when it started (I had it then and have it now), but I think this is the last year for me. For all the new features and the HD, it is nice, but it has just gotten too pricey for me.


----------



## Xram (Nov 19, 2005)

hasan said:


> That was the price when it started (I had it then and have it now), but I think this is the last year for me. For all the new features and the HD, it is nice, but it has just gotten too pricey for me.


I couldn't agree with you more. As much as i love my Sunday football, the price is reaching the breaking point for me.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

Dan Sholtis
There is only One Nation.....Raider Nation..

I heard a rumor that there was a Steeler nation?


----------



## fikuserectus (Aug 19, 2006)

Xram said:


> I couldn't agree with you more. As much as i love my Sunday football, the price is reaching the breaking point for me.


I use to get Sunday Ticket, but then the price went up. They decided to charge extra for HD games!! I'm already paying $10 for the D* HD package why do I need to may for for Sunday Ticket HD games (superfan package).

Now I just watch the games from my local bar.


----------



## mishawaka (Sep 11, 2007)

joed32 said:


> Dan Sholtis
> There is only One Nation.....Raider Nation..
> 
> I heard a rumor that there was a Steeler nation?


so long as it isn't red sox nation :nono2:


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

jtn said:


> Let me clarify, Some carriers are not allowed to carry HBO Comedy etc. One company should not monopolize a channel and say only for themselves. DirecTV can't get HBO Comedy now because cable companies have monopolized it.


nope E* carries it


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

juan ellitinez said:


> nope E* carries it


That's right they do. And I'm sure they have some arrangement that they and certain cable companies only get it. I'm sure DirecTV would have that Comedy HBO instead of either HBO West for people in Eastern part of US, and vice versa for Western Part.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

I just realized that we are getting hosed in NE Ohio. We are not getting the NE/Indy game this weekend because the Browns are playing on Fox at the same time.  

So, I just signed up for ST for $179 for the rest of the season with free Superfan.

I realize that I could watch the NE/Indy highlights for free after the fact, but it's only money, right?


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

mishawaka said:


> so long as it isn't red sox nation :nono2:


Jealousy is an ugly trait.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

braven said:


> I'd jump all over it for $99, but that will never happen so no Sunday Ticket for me.


Yeah, I don't think Single team would ever be $99 at this point. But I could see $200 for Single Team, $300 for a Single Division, and $400 for the whole shebang, all with the appropriate HD coverage. I could easily see me buying division for myself and single team for a couple family members.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## jclarke9999 (Feb 10, 2007)

I originally subscribed to D* to get St to see my Bengals once I moved out of Cincy (Lord knows they weren't on anywhere else in the 90s). Now I admit I'm hooked on being able to watch whatever game I want. I love D* and wouldn't leave is ST wasn't exclusive, but if they lost it, I just don't know...........


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

jtn said:


> That's right they do. And I'm sure they have some arrangement that they and certain cable companies only get it. I'm sure DirecTV would have that Comedy HBO instead of either HBO West for people in Eastern part of US, and vice versa for Western Part.


What are you talking about? First you say it's a cable exclusive, and now ift's a Dish and cable exclusive.  I mean come on, none of the other HBO channels are an exclusive to anyone so what makes HBO Comedy so special.

HBO Comedy is not exclusive to anyone, fact is DirecTV just doesn't carry it, nothing exclusive about it. I don't get Game Show Network on cable, that doesn't mean it's exclusive to Dish and DirecTV, it just means my Time Warner franchise chose not to add it. DirecTV also doesn't carry HBO Zone, Showtime Next, Showtime Family Zone, Showime Women and about 5 or 6 Cinemaxes and that has nothing to do with cable either, it's that DirecTV doesn't carry them.


----------



## Cable Lover (Jun 19, 2007)

Cable will get rights to ST in 2011. Mark it down.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Cable Lover said:


> Cable will get rights to ST in 2011. Mark it down.


I marked it down. Now, how do I find you once your premonition is wrong?


----------



## Cable Lover (Jun 19, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> I marked it down. Now, how do I find you once your premonition is wrong?


I'll bes right here!


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I hope I really do, but DirecTV has already ruined the package with constant price increases because they can. There is nothing more that I'd like to see that have the almighty DirecTVs crown jewel be taken away by InDemand, but for me personally it won't be worth it to subscribe. For what Sunday Ticket with HD will cost by then I could get a cheap flight to Nashville and see my Titans in person.

At least DirecTV can't ruin MLB Extra Innings. Competition is a beautiful thing. Had DirecTV been the sole provider of EI, I wonder how much it would have cost in 2 or 3 years.


----------



## spidey (Sep 1, 2006)

I hope D* continues to outbid tej competition, I will NEVER EVER go back to cable even if D* lost NFLST to those clowns


----------



## spidey (Sep 1, 2006)

Cable Lover said:


> Cable will get rights to ST in 2011. Mark it down.


great go back to loving your cable till than :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

With your identical avitars, I can't tell you guys apart. I thought you were arguing with yourself. It was quite funny. :lol:


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

What do you mean?


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> What do you mean?


Now that's just not fair.


----------



## spidey (Sep 1, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> Now that's just not fair.


what ???:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## mishawaka (Sep 11, 2007)

cable needs MUCH more than Sunday Ticket to help them out. i switched from comcast a few months back, and my only regret is not doing it sooner.


----------



## mluntz (Jul 13, 2006)

Probably a dumb question, but here goes:

If D* pays a set price for ST until 2011, why does our cost go up every year, just because it can?

I remember the days of $99 ST.

I think I even only paid $45 for it one year.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> If D* pays a set price for ST until 2011, why does our cost go up every year, just because it can?


Pretty much. Look at the cost of all the other pro sports packages from 10 years ago and compare them to what they are today. Only one sports package has had constant price increases, only one is considerably more then it was 10 years ago and only one is a DirecTV exclusive. To quote AC/DC, DirecTV has got you by the balls, and they know it. The NFL is not just a game, it's a lifestyle, DirecTVs got the drug of choice for NFL fans, they exploit you and they can charge whatever they want, because where else can you go? I love the NFL, I love my Titans, Sunday is football day from noon on, I wish I would have subscribed to ST when I had DirecTV, but now at this point in time the package does not interest me due to the cost and charging extra for HD. That IMO sucks for us all. Now that DirecTV charges extra for NFL ST and MLB EI, that is a dangerous precedent. If DirecTV can extort for HD games from pro sports subscription packages, Dish Network and inDemand may very well consider it.


----------



## sdicomp (Sep 12, 2006)

mishawaka said:


> cable needs MUCH more than Sunday Ticket to help them out. i switched from comcast a few months back, and my only regret is not doing it sooner.


well said!! And correct!


----------



## sdicomp (Sep 12, 2006)

mluntz said:


> If D* pays a set price for ST until 2011, why does our cost go up every year, just because it can?


Yep!


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

OK, I need to bust out with something. (lol).

I had COX cable. Had them for a few years. Highspeed internet and BASIC tv (Channel 3-78 with a few of them missing/provider bars), no High def, no movie channels, the BASIC shtuff. I was satisfied. It was cheap, I had the USA network, my kids had Cartoon Net, Toon Disney, Disney, and Nick... I switched back to DTV because the new house im in doesn't have cable coming to it yet. I also hung myself and got DSL...

On top of that... A few months ago, before I switched back, my grandmother had D* and I told her to get TWC, which is now RoadRunner, which she is satisfied with, much better internet speeds, and it carries the same shows she likes to watch. Unfortunately for me she sent in her owned HR10-250 and leased R15 when she cancelled, lol.

However, on the flip side, Even though I'm paying 2ce, maybe 3 times the amt with D*, I do enjoy it. Even with the premier package I have a hard time finding something to watch, but, its got VS for my bull riding, showtime, and USA...


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

People are in need of a basic understanding of economics here. Prices are determined by supply and demand and have almost nothing to do with the costs to the seller. 

In this case I'd almost bet that D* makes little money on ST directly; rather they use it to keep (and maybe even increase) the subscriber base.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Well if it would take the price down I wouldn't mind other carriers having ST at all :money: But I still wouldn't leave D


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

KurtV said:


> People are in need of a basic understanding of economics here. Prices are determined by supply and demand and have almost nothing to do with the costs to the seller.
> 
> In this case I'd almost bet that D* makes little money on ST directly; rather they use it to keep (and maybe even increase) the subscriber base.


Restricting ST to just DirecTV at 16 million potential subscribers, when America has 300 million potential customers, would be silly.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Dolly said:


> Well if it would take the price down I wouldn't mind other carriers having ST at all :money: But I still wouldn't leave D


The damage is already done. The price wouldn't come down, but it reduce how often and how much it would be increased. If iNDemand got Sunday Ticket no way would they charge less then DirecTV, because DirecTV has already set the value and if people are willing to pay that much with DirecTV, they should be willing to pay that much with cable.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

I'm certainly in no position to know generally how most contracts work, nor to know contract structures in the broadcasting field or anything like that, but I would be a bit surprised if the D*/NFL contract for Sunday Ticket was for the same $X amount per year for the entire length of the contract. I would think it may be more of a scale that increases each year.

Like I said, I know nothing about it, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> At least DirecTV can't ruin MLB Extra Innings. Competition is a beautiful thing. Had DirecTV been the sole provider of EI, I wonder how much it would have cost in 2 or 3 years.


Probably a lot more than it costs now.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2007)

mluntz said:


> Probably a dumb question, but here goes:
> 
> If D* pays a set price for ST until 2011, why does our cost go up every year, just because it can?


The reason it goes up every year is that DirecTV has to overpay in order to keep the package exclusive - i.e., they pay more for the package than they can recoup in subscriptions and advertising. If they suddenly raised the price by $100 or more, they would risk having a large number of cancellations. So they increase it $10 or $20 every year so that it doesn't seem like such a big increase. And they add on a $99 Superfan package.

At a cost of $700 million per season, it isn't likely that DirecTV is making any money on the Sunday Ticket package. They are carrying it as a loss leader in order to have a programming package that no other service provider can offer. Unfortunately, it's the Sunday Ticket subscribers who are paying for those exclusive rights.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2007)

mishawaka said:


> cable needs MUCH more than Sunday Ticket to help them out. i switched from comcast a few months back, and my only regret is not doing it sooner.


You mean it isn't "Comcastic"?


----------



## jazzyd971fm (Sep 1, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> At a cost of $700 million per season, it isn't likely that DirecTV is making any money on the Sunday Ticket package. They are carrying it as a loss leader in order to have a programming package that no other service provider can offer. Unfortunately, it's the Sunday Ticket subscribers who are paying for those exclusive rights.


D* is using Sunday Ticket to increase subscribers who want to switch from cable; yes we pay the price for the rights but you know what, knowing I can have my choice of any NFL game on Sunday to watch, I don't mind paying for the service.

Also it is nice to go to work on Monday talking about the Sunday games knowing my co-workers saw only highlights of other games when I saw them LIVE on Sunday Ticket !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. RZ Channel is AWESOME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Well, it appears that the govt is holding up the approval of Malone's takeover and one of the issues is the exclusivity on the NFL package.


----------



## Tom B (Nov 27, 2005)

jtn said:


> Restricting ST to just DirecTV at 16 million potential subscribers, when America has 300 million potential customers, would be silly.


Which, from DirecTV's point of view means that there are 300 million potential DirecTV customers.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Ken S said:


> Well, it appears that the govt is holding up the approval of Malone's takeover and one of the issues is the exclusivity on the NFL package.


Again, most of big business escapes me, but ST has been an exclusive part of D* for so many years now (and at least 2 or 3 more), so why would that have any bearing whatsoever on the takeover deal with Malone & Liberty?


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2007)

jazzyd971fm said:


> D* is using Sunday Ticket to increase subscribers who want to switch from cable; yes we pay the price for the rights but you know what, knowing I can have my choice of any NFL game on Sunday to watch, I don't mind paying for the service.
> 
> Also it is nice to go to work on Monday talking about the Sunday games knowing my co-workers saw only highlights of other games when I saw them LIVE on Sunday Ticket !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Will you still think it's nice when you have to pay $400 for the package? Or $500? And will your co-workers really care that you're able to watch a few games that they couldn't see, or will they just laugh at you for spending that kind of money?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> And will your co-workers really care that you're able to watch a few games that they couldn't see, or will they just laugh at you for spending that kind of money?


I don't really give a flying [email protected]#$ what they think. I don't do it for them, I do it for ME. And until my local affiliates/networks decide to give me teams other than the Steelers/Browns/Bengals and Redskins, I will continue to pay no matter what the cost.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Herdfan said:


> I don't really give a flying [email protected]#$ what they think. I don't do it for them, I do it for ME. And until my local affiliates/networks decide to give me teams other than the Steelers/Browns/Bengals and Redskins, I will continue to pay no matter what the cost.


Agreed I'll continue to pay it as well whatever the cost. To say or do otherwise is just......Comcastic..:lol:


----------



## BearGator56 (Apr 29, 2007)

Ken S said:


> BTW, at what point does the NFL price Sunday Ticket out of reach for its fans? We're getting close to $350 with the HD package. Will fans go $500?


It would still only be $31.25 a game. Cheaper than a season ticket at the actual game. I can't get my Bears on regular channels, unless they're the national game or prime time. Without ST, I'd be lucky to see 4 or 5 games a year. Then again, the way they're playing this year-that's not so bad...


----------



## BJM (Dec 9, 2006)

Forgive me if this has been asked and answered... do we know how many subscribers there are to ST? to Superfan = ST?


----------



## Chuck W (Mar 26, 2002)

Ken S said:


> Well, it appears that the govt is holding up the approval of Malone's takeover and one of the issues is the exclusivity on the NFL package.


I don't believe that ST has anything to do with any holdup. If it were, then the deal with Murdoch, a few years ago, would have had the same issue.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Well, it appears that the govt is holding up the approval of Malone's takeover and one of the issues is the exclusivity on the NFL package.


Were did you see and article with the hook about the NFL package?

(I have seen the articles about the hold up, but those were more about the promisses about SD LiL and must carry related items).


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> Again, most of big business escapes me, but ST has been an exclusive part of D* for so many years now (and at least 2 or 3 more), so why would that have any bearing whatsoever on the takeover deal with Malone & Liberty?


Because now some Congresspeople have leverage to get what they want. Politics as usual.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

BJM said:


> Forgive me if this has been asked and answered... do we know how many subscribers there are to ST? to Superfan = ST?


I saw 1.6 million reported. Don't know if that's correct.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> I don't really give a flying [email protected]#$ what they think. I don't do it for them, I do it for ME. And until my local affiliates/networks decide to give me teams other than the Steelers/Browns/Bengals and Redskins, I will continue to pay no matter what the cost.


The point of jazzyd971fm's comment was that he liked the exclusive DirecTV deal because he could brag to co-workers about all those Sunday Ticket games they couldn't watch on cable. Would you rather pay $400 to see ST games that aren't available on cable or $200 for games that are available on both satellite and cable?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> The point of jazzyd971fm's comment was that he liked the exclusive DirecTV deal because he could brag to co-workers about all those Sunday Ticket games they couldn't watch on cable. Would you rather pay $400 to see ST games that aren't available on cable or $200 for games that are available on both satellite and cable?


ZERO guarantee that the price would be any less, if it was opened up to multiple carriers....

In fact... IMHO, I think it has a MUCH better chance of going UP rather then going down.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> ZERO guarantee that the price would be any less, if it was opened up to multiple carriers....
> 
> In fact... IMHO, I think it has a MUCH better chance of going UP rather then going down.


The more availability to the consumer the less it will cost IMHO, and it shouldn't be restricted to a carrier. The more sales in any product or volume the cost goes down. Let say the cost stay the same for this product (ST) by opening it up to all carriers, that would be the right thing to do. That way if a customer should switch because of a move or cannot get a certain carrier beyond their control, it makes it possible. Why should sports be restricted while other programming is not? HBO would not be better off to restrict itself to just DirecTV.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> ZERO guarantee that the price would be any less, if it was opened up to multiple carriers....
> 
> In fact... IMHO, I think it has a MUCH better chance of going UP rather then going down.


The price probably wouldn't come down, but it wouldn't go up as fast. The notion that it would be more likely to go up with multiple carriers doesn't make a lot of sense, Earl.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> The more availability to the consumer the less it will cost IMHO, and it shouldn't be restricted to a carrier. The more sales in any product or volume the cost goes down. Let say the cost stay the same for this product (ST) by opening it up to all carriers, that would be the right thing to do. That way if a customer should switch because of a move or cannot get a certain carrier beyond their control, it makes it possible. Why should sports be restricted while other programming is not? HBO would not be better off to restrict itself to just DirecTV.


Again... no guarantee it...

We have ZERO idea on what the contracts woudl be like for multiple carriers.

What if:
Each carrier would have to give the NFL a blanket minumum amount, just to have access to provide the package.

Then a percentage of the subscriber base...

Then you have all the other carriers (With the exception of DirecTV), that would have to bulk up their infrastructure... and in the cases of cable-co's... a few times over probably since they are regional.

So now you have that cost.

You now have the NFL that will have to be the primary advertister for Sunday Ticket, as no one carrier is going to take on the advertising duties for the package..... (like DirecTV does now).

--------

On to your other argument... HBO... I don't have any numbers on HBO...
But say ESPN... why does ESPN cost so much, when it is available on just about every carrier out there? Shouldn't it be lower? (granted it is included in everyone package... but the recent Big Ten network stuff, point just how much ESPN was charging for their channel to these carriers... which ultimately gets transfered to the customer).

There is nothing stopping HBO to being inclusive to one carrier... Nothing.
They could if they wanted to be......

The exclusive aspect of the Sunday Ticket... is all on the NFL... they are the one that offers the product... they are the ones that accepted DirecTV's bid, which included a component of exclusivity.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Again... no guarantee it...
> 
> We have ZERO idea on what the contracts woudl be like for multiple carriers.
> 
> ...


Restricting any programming to those with deep pockets, wealthy for bragging rights is never a good thing, and the cost of ST is expensive and out of reach simply IMHO because of restrictions to one carrier (DirecTV) whom has no choice but to make it very expensive since they have to pay the NFL so much to carry it.
Not disagreeing with you making some observations Earl.

--------


Earl Bonovich said:


> On to your other argument... HBO... I don't have any numbers on HBO...
> But say ESPN... why does ESPN cost so much, when it is available on just about every carrier out there? Shouldn't it be lower? (granted it is included in everyone package... but the recent Big Ten network stuff, point just how much ESPN was charging for their channel to these carriers... which ultimately gets transfered to the customer).
> 
> There is nothing stopping HBO to being inclusive to one carrier... Nothing.
> ...


ESPN is eastern region, I'm sure there is a western sports network for that region. Most of ESPN programming is available nationally, since it's not sports specific. There is also YES network which is restricted, NESN which is too, but if there were no regional sports nets, I believe it would be cost effective to have national availability with the blackouts they impose by varying regional rules.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> The exclusive aspect of the Sunday Ticket... is all on the NFL... they are the one that offers the product... they are the ones that accepted DirecTV's bid, which included a component of exclusivity.


...and the NFL also negotiated a non-exclusive deal that would have allowed cable companies to carry Sunday Ticket after the 2005 season. The only reason the deal stayed exclusive is that DirecTV renegotiated it and raised the license fee from $400 million per year to $700 million. A non-exclusive deal would have been less expensive for DirecTV (the rights fee would have stayed at $400 million per year for the 2006-7 seasons), just as the MLB EI deal costs DirecTV less than if it were exclusive (that's a documented fact, not just speculation). The reason DirecTV is jacking up the price of Sunday Ticket year after year is because they have to pay substantially more for exclusive rights. It's that simple.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> ...and the NFL also negotiated a non-exclusive deal that would have allowed cable companies to carry Sunday Ticket after the 2005 season. The only reason the deal stayed exclusive is that DirecTV renegotiated it and raised the license fee from $400 million per year to $700 million. A non-exclusive deal would have been less expensive for DirecTV (the rights fee would have stayed at $400 million per year for the 2006-7 seasons), just as the MLB EI deal costs DirecTV less than if it were exclusive (that's a documented fact, not just speculation). The reason DirecTV is jacking up the price of Sunday Ticket year after year is because they have to pay substantially more for exclusive rights. It's that simple.


Your right... it is that simple.
It is business...

There is nothing "illegal" being done.....
If the market can not sustain the rates... then it will change.

But while there are enough people that are willing to pay the price that DirecTV puts on it... they have no reason not to continue paying that high price to NFL network, and turning around and selling it as an exclusive package.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> Restricting any programming to those with deep pockets, wealthy for bragging rights is never a good thing, and the cost of ST is expensive and out of reach simply IMHO because of restrictions to one carrier (DirecTV) whom has no choice but to make it very expensive since they have to pay the NFL so much to carry it.
> Not disagreeing with you making some observations Earl.


That is all in the hands of the NFL...
If they are getting what they want from the TV contract.... then...

The beef shouldn't be with DirecTV... but with the NFL...
If they want to lower the threshold of what they want to get from the deal... then maybe different players can get involved in 2011 (when the contract ends).

But until then... I doubt there is a single carrier that is going to get into the game... at the price points that NFL is putting out there, that DirecTV is already poised to meet.... they know what it costs to do Sunday Ticket... and are probably at a point that they know EXACTLY what they can bid (and in turn charge for it).

Heck... look how close EI almost became to be an exclusive contract.... what 1 day away before In-Demand jumped in for the Cable Co's

IMHO... You will never see Sunday Ticket on another carrier until:
a) DirecTV doesn't want it any longer
b) The Government gets involved...


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

If the pricing is market value based, doesn't matter if the package is exclusive or not. The price will rise so long as the market will bear.

If the pricing is cost based, there would be some cost increases with a potentially larger audience as well; the people who can not receive DIRECTV.

My guess is that we're mostly in market value pricing. So more access wouldn't change the pricing all that much right now.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> That is all in the hands of the NFL...
> If they are getting what they want from the TV contract.... then...
> 
> The beef shouldn't be with DirecTV... but with the NFL...
> ...


I very much agree with all this. The cable companies had several chances and blew it. DIRECTV continued to take it over and did a great job of building the product.

That said, I could see another chance for the cable companies someday. And if they continue as they have, they will blow that chance too. 

And DIRECTV will still continue to build the product, improve it, and keep me as a customer. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> That is all in the hands of the NFL...
> If they are getting what they want from the TV contract.... then...
> 
> The beef shouldn't be with DirecTV... but with the NFL...
> ...


Well many who want the game and cannot get DirecTV will be left out in the cold, I can see both sides of the coin.

I don't blame DirecTV for taking the opportunity for exclusivity. However the government is taking notice, and we will have to take a wait and see approach.

I have no problem with DirecTV taking advantage, but it doesn't serve the public, and that should be what it should do, it's about fans getting to watch programming.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

NFL Network plea to FCC

from the article (Sunday Ticket related)


> It's ironic that the NFL is pursuing this when they exclusively sell Sunday Ticket to DirecTV," said Melinda Witmer, Time Warner Cable's senior vice president and chief programming officer. "The claim that they need assistance from government for fair treatment is ironic."


Wasn't it offerred to all?



> Frank Hawkins, NFL senior vice president, responded that cable companies "*had plenty of opportunity*" in both 2002 and 2005 to bid on Sunday Ticket.
> 
> He predicted that in 2010, when the DirecTV package is available again, "they (the cable operators) will dither and* just not get there again*."


The above is what many are saying here.



> The NFL Network's Williams also points to channels, such as the forthcoming MLB Channel, that Comcast and Time Warner put on digital basic after they were given an ownership stake.
> 
> Comcast's Cohen agrees, saying, "Had the NFL *given* us access to Sunday Ticket, we would be carrying the NFL Network on a more widely distributed tier of service, comparable to what we would do with the Major League Baseball Extra Innings package."


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Your right... it is that simple.
> It is business...
> 
> There is nothing "illegal" being done.....
> If the market can not sustain the rates... then it will change.


Agreed. There is nothing illegal or unethical about it - at least not at this time. Deals of this type are currently legal and, unless Congress steps in and outlaws the practice, it will continue until the price reaches a point where DirecTV starts to see revenue decline as a result of cancellations.



Earl Bonovich said:


> But while there are enough people that are willing to pay the price that DirecTV puts on it... they have no reason not to continue paying that high price to NFL network, and turning around and selling it as an exclusive package.


And that's what we're debating in this thread - how high the price can go before DirecTV starts to see a significant number of cancellations, and whether Congress decides at some point to require that these deals be made available to all carriers. Remember, the MLB EI deal that would have given DirecTV exclusive rights was perfectly legal under current law, but it was political pressure that caused the deal to remain non-exclusive. The same thing could happen with Sunday Ticket.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

jtn said:


> I don't blame DirecTV for taking the opportunity for exclusivity. However the government is taking notice, and we will have to take a wait and see approach.
> 
> I have no problem with DirecTV taking advantage, but it doesn't serve the public, and that should be what it should do, it's about fans getting to watch programming.


This is the same crap that occurred with MLBEI. The Federal government _should_ have bigger things to concern itself with then who gets out-of-market Sports.

And it should be up to the NFL what Sunday Ticket _should_ do. It is their product afterall.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

bidger said:


> This is the same crap that occurred with MLBEI. The Federal government _should_ have bigger things to concern itself with then who gets out-of-market Sports.
> 
> And it should be up to the NFL what Sunday Ticket _should_ do. It is their product afterall.


NOT so, the public funds it, without the public, it doesn't exist. The public funds most of the programming we have, and such. So the public should have access despite the carrier. If the public is angered, and boycotts and no longer participates, good by NFL or any other sport, sort of like what happened with baseball boycott in 1994 with the strike by consumers. The fans walked away, stopped paying to go. Ticking off the consumer can break anybodies back. The consumer can make or break any company.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

There is a component that isn't being discussed. NFL owners get hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks, publicly financed stadiums as well as anti-trust exemption. Politicians know that's their shock collar. 

The reason that EI isn't exclusive is because politicians started whining...and made sure the deal got done.

Whether the price goes up or down isn't really their concern (until it goes so high as to tick off a lot of constituents).


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

bidger said:


> This is the same crap that occurred with MLBEI. The Federal government _should_ have bigger things to concern itself with then who gets out-of-market Sports.
> 
> And it should be up to the NFL what Sunday Ticket _should_ do. It is their product afterall.


bidger,

This isn't the "federal government" this is individual politicians at work. It happens everywhere. Want a good flight? Make sure you're flying from an airport frequented by politicians at times they normally fly.


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

Ken S said:


> BTW, at what point does the NFL price Sunday Ticket out of reach for its fans? We're getting close to $350 with the HD package. *Will fans go $500*


I will. Still worth it.

Depends on how much you love your football


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

> But, Steve Brenner, CEO of cable pay-per-view company In Demand - owned by Comcast, Time Warner and Cox - says he doesn't think the NFL considered cable seriously.
> 
> "We offered a lot of things that would have built a better mouse trap," *including insertion of local ads*, he says. "And we would have been happy to share the package. But I don't think anyone got a real offer."


Cable Cos would ruin the Sunday Ticket..


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> I have no problem with DirecTV taking advantage, but it doesn't serve the public, and that should be what it should do, it's about fans getting to watch programming.


DirecTV is a company... built on making a profit....
Not "serving" the public.

It is a business.... and as much as the NFL is entertainment and a sport... make no mistake... it is more of a business.. .then it is a sport (the "NFL" side of it, not the game being played)

If it was about the "fans"... they would have more 100,000 person capacity stadiums and tickets for $10.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Blitz68 said:


> I will. Still worth it.
> 
> Depends on how much you love your football


That price is unreasonable, in comparison to what the public funds for sports, there is simply not enough seats at the stadium to support the public or the teams expenses, so it's silly they don't look for the most money from opening the door to as many carriers as possible.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> DirecTV is a company... built on making a profit....
> Not "serving" the public.
> 
> It is a business.... and as much as the NFL is entertainment and a sport... make no mistake... it is more of a business.. .then it is a sport (the "NFL" side of it, not the game being played)
> ...


Companies and sponsors help all sporting groups, they do not run the business on their own, they get help from the public, so restriction is not fair, and over pricing is unfair for the majority.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

(Over) Pricing is determined by the market. When the price is too high alternatives will emerge.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Ken S said:


> bidger,
> 
> This isn't the "federal government" this is individual politicians at work. It happens everywhere. Want a good flight? Make sure you're flying from an airport frequented by politicians at times they normally fly.


Of course, Ken. I remember Kerry acting as Comcast's mouthpiece re MLBEI and showing how uninformed he was by saying that those in Brookline, Mass. would be locked out of Red Sox games if DIRECTV had MLBEI exclusivity. Grandstanding and politicians go hand in hand.

The public is entitled to whatever is over the airwaves via an antenna, jtn, that doesn't include multichannel service and Sports packages. As Earl stated, both DIRECTV and the NFL are "for profit". As far as it being overpriced, that's your opinion and you're allowed to act on it by not subscribing. The market determines whether the package is overpriced in the end by dropping subscription numbers and that has yet to happen.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

It appears that the argument is this:

The NFL (a business) entered in to a legal contract with DirecTV (another business) and some people on here don't like it. 

If the contract is legal then the government has no say so. 

Time to move on. There is nothing to see here.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> Companies and sponsors help all sporting groups, they do not run the business on their own, they get help from the public, so restriction is not fair, and over pricing is unfair for the majority.


Well.. sadly... that is the state of professional sports right now.
And college isn't getting too far befhind either.

It cost me $100 just for the tickets to take my wife and my son to an Illinois game just a few weeks ago.

High School playoff tickets here, are running $15 a person...

Again... as long as the market dictates that they can still achieve their objectives... the price is going to be what it is.

I don't have Sunday Ticket, simply because I don't value the access feeds to other city broadcasts at the price point (and I have never had Sunday Ticket).

I get my Bears on the local broadcast, and I get at least 1 other game in the other slot, the Sunday Night, Monday Night... and soon Thursday night games...

For me... the price piont was already too high when they first released it...
But that is me as a consumer deciding what I want to spend my money on.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

bidger said:


> Of course, Ken. I remember Kerry acting as Comcast's mouthpiece re MLBEI and showing how uninformed he was by saying that those in Brookline, Mass. would be locked out of Red Sox games if DIRECTV had MLBEI exclusivity. Grandstanding and politicians go hand in hand.
> 
> The public is entitled to whatever is over the airwaves via an antenna, jtn, that doesn't include multichannel service and Sports packages. As Earl stated, both DIRECTV and the NFL are "for profit". As far as it being overpriced, that's your opinion and you're allowed to act on it by not subscribing. The market determines whether the package is overpriced in the end by dropping subscription numbers and that has yet to happen.


Where did I say it was overpriced? I asked if people would be willing to spend $500...that's about it.
I'm reading the thread only because I have interest in the discussion and the business side. I have little interest, any longer, in watching the NFL and canceled our subscription two seasons ago....that was after having been a customer since it was first launched on C-Band.
If I want to watch good pro football I can visit just about any of the major colleges in Florida and catch a game


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Where did I say it was overpriced? I asked if people would be willing to spend $500...that's about it.
> I'm reading the thread only because I have interest in the discussion and the business side. I have little interest, any longer, in watching the NFL and canceled our subscription two seasons ago....that was after having been a customer since it was first launched on C-Band.
> If I want to watch good pro football I can visit just about any of the major colleges in Florida and catch a game


It's too bad you can't get the programming you can afford, and yes it is fine to watch college football, but you still want to have the ability to watch any game at reasonable prices. The higher the demand the lower the cost.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

One thing people forget is the NFL is nothing if not the master of marketing itself and making the most money it can. If the NFL felt it would make more money by not having Sunday Ticket exclusive they would do it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

MikeR said:


> Cable Cos would ruin the Sunday Ticket..


BS. How would cable companies ruin Sunday Ticket? DirecTV already ruined it with the price. Indemand hasn't ruined any of the other sports packages, they don't charge extra for HD on MLB EI and they offered more games in HD per week then DirecTV, both NBA LP and NHL CI have stats and game mix channels, NHL CI had the whole Hockey Day In Canada. InDemand has proven to be just as good handling the pro sports packages, if not better then the almighty DirecTV, the sports leader extraordinaire. I have no blackout problems whatsoever with MLB EI or NHL CI on cable, same can't be said for a lot of DirecTV users.



> In fact... IMHO, I think it has a MUCH better chance of going UP rather then going down.


It's pretty simple, NHL CI, NBA LP, MLB EI, all once DirecTV exclusives, then InDemand got them, then Dish. Prices have stayed pretty much inline over the past 10 years, NFL ST, nothing but increases. Can you honestly say with a straight face if InDemand got Sunday Ticket, the price would dramatically increase?



> This is the same crap that occurred with MLBEI. The Federal government should have bigger things to concern itself with then who gets out-of-market Sports.


Government officials get paid to (or suppose to) represent and fight for their constitutes. And they did alright by me. I got Extra Innings on cable, because of the government intervening and that's all right by me. It might not have been my elected officials, but somebody's elected officials helped slap down DirecTV and put a W in the column for those who do not what their service. And I hope it happens in a few years with NFL ST.


----------



## jimb726 (Jan 9, 2007)

jtn said:


> It's too bad you can't get the programming you can afford, and yes it is fine to watch college football, but you still want to have the ability to watch any game at reasonable prices. The higher the demand the lower the cost.


I was always told that the higher the demand the more you could charge for your item, hence the laws of supply and demand. You want cheaper products, dont buy them and the price has to come down. DirecTv isnt the one causing the problem here, if there truly is a problem. And for the record I dont think there is. The right to watch a football game isnt guaranteed to anyone and if the NFL wants to sell its rights on an exclusive carrier so they dont upset their main providers (NBC, FOX, ESPN, etc) than they have every right to. As has been stated numerous times, if the price gets too high, people will not subscribe and the price will come down. Economics 101.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Steve Mehs said:


> It's pretty simple, NHL CI, NBA LP, MLB EI, all once DirecTV exclusives, then InDemand got them, then Dish. Prices have stayed pretty much inline over the past 10 years, NFL ST, nothing but increases. Can you honestly say with a straight face if InDemand got Sunday Ticket, the price would dramatically increase?


First, those 3 have never been DirecTV exclusives. 
And second when I first got NHL CI a few years ago it was $79. It's now $179. They all have been going up.

If InDemand got Sunday Ticket it would still keep going up every year just as it is now simply due to the fact that it's obvious the market will bear the cost.

Not sure what the point is here.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

jimb726 said:


> I was always told that the higher the demand the more you could charge for your item, hence the laws of supply and demand. You want cheaper products, dont buy them and the price has to come down. DirecTv isnt the one causing the problem here, if there truly is a problem. And for the record I dont think there is. The right to watch a football game isnt guaranteed to anyone and if the NFL wants to sell its rights on an exclusive carrier so they dont upset their main providers (NBC, FOX, ESPN, etc) than they have every right to. As has been stated numerous times, if the price gets too high, people will not subscribe and the price will come down. Economics 101.


Jim, not so, the more people bought VCR's the lower the price, the same with programming. It costs much more if few people buy products and services. No offense but I disagree with what you consider economics 101. Take the course over again.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

jtn said:


> It's too bad you can't get the programming you can afford, and yes it is fine to watch college football, but you still want to have the ability to watch any game at reasonable prices. The higher the demand the lower the cost.


No offense, but you need to take a basic economics course. With a product or service that is price elastic, the lower the cost, the higher the demand. On the supply side of things, the lower the cost the lower the supply. In a free market, price and quantity will find an equilibrium over time.

The real question is who gets to define "reasonable prices"? Based upon some of your other posts, it appears that you want the government to set those prices. Government price fixing in most markets is a huge failure. It tends to create artificial shortages. Everyone can afford the item in question but no one will supply it.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> Jim, not so, the more people bought VCR's the lower the price, the same with programming. It costs much more if few people buy products and services. No offense but I disagree with what you consider economics 101. Take the course over again.


Actually... in Econ101 his is correct....

It isn't until ECON102 or higher courses... when you start to factor in all the other 100's of factors into the equations. 

In utopia... when there are just 2 variables: Supply vs Demand... that is how it works... but this isn't a vacume or utopia... and there is no "easy" formula to dictate the pattern.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> No offense, but you need to take a basic economics course. With a product or service that is price elastic, the lower the cost, the higher the demand. On the supply side of things, the lower the cost the lower the supply. In a free market, price and quantity will find an equilibrium over time.
> 
> The real question is who gets to define "reasonable prices"? Based upon some of your other posts, it appears that you want the government to set those prices. Government price fixing in most markets is a huge failure. It tends to create artificial shortages.


You have misconstrued what I have said, but yet you have confirmed by saying "with a product of service that is price elastic, the lower the cost, the higher the demand."

You have obviously have loyalty to other members and despite the fact I agree with the more who buy the less the cost, you just are trying to confuse the viewers of this forum. You need to pay more attention to what you say jwd, I don't flip flop.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> Government officials get paid to (or suppose to) represent and fight for their constitutes. And they did alright by me. I got Extra Innings on cable, because of the government intervening and that's all right by me. It might not have been my elected officials, but somebody's elected officials helped slap down DirecTV and put a W in the column for those who do not what their service. And I hope it happens in a few years with NFL ST.


Nobody slapped down anybody. D*s deal with MLB for EI always had a provision in it for InDemand to pony up and be part of it. In Demand just didn't like the cost and so initially balked (yes, fully intended). They heard from their subscribers and reconsidered. The politicians had nothing to do with it.

I, for one, am sick and tired of blustering politicians, who know nothing about these issues (e.g. Kerry's idiotic comments about Brookline residents not being able to see the Sox if EI was exclusive to D*), threatening legitimate businesses.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> Jim, not so, the more people bought VCR's the lower the price, the same with programming. It costs much more if few people buy products and services. No offense but I disagree with what you consider economics 101. Take the course over again.


Not same with programming, especially with market value based pricing. With VCRs, the more sold introduced more competition ultimately creating a cost based commodity market.

With NFL ST/SF there is only one source, one product, limited competition of the base product itself.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

jtn said:


> Jim, not so, the more people bought VCR's the lower the price, the same with programming. It costs much more if few people buy products and services. No offense but I disagree with what you consider economics 101. Take the course over again.


You have your causal relationship exactly backwards. People bought more VCRs because prices fell, not the other way around.


----------



## jimb726 (Jan 9, 2007)

jtn said:


> Jim, not so, the more people bought VCR's the lower the price, the same with programming. It costs much more if few people buy products and services. No offense but I disagree with what you consider economics 101. Take the course over again.


No Sir, my course taking was fine. I suspect that the refresher is required on your part. If a product is available in one place, and there is significant demand for it, why in the world would someone lower the price. That is what is known as supply and demand, which is exactly what I said. People want Sunday Ticket, DirecTv is the only provider and presumably there are more people coming than going so the price keeps going up, demand exceeds supply. Conversely, if the price gets to a point where more people are leaving than joining than supply has exceeded demand and the price will drop to a point where the demand exceeds supply. It isnt rocket science.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

jimb726 said:


> No Sir, my course taking was fine. I suspect that the refresher is required on your part. If a product is available in one place, and there is significant demand for it, why in the world would someone lower the price. That is what is known as supply and demand, which is exactly what I said. People want Sunday Ticket, DirecTv is the only provider and presumably there are more people coming than going so the price keeps going up, demand exceeds supply. Conversely, if the price gets to a point where more people are leaving than joining than supply has exceeded demand and the price will drop to a point where the demand exceeds supply. It isnt rocket science.


Jim, again that is not true, why did the price of the HR10 go down from $1000 to $299? Because more customers signed up for service in and HD programming right? So I disagree with your opinion.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

bonscott87 said:


> First, those 3 have never been DirecTV exclusives.
> And second when I first got NHL CI a few years ago it was $79. It's now $179. They all have been going up.
> 
> If InDemand got Sunday Ticket it would still keep going up every year just as it is now simply due to the fact that it's obvious the market will bear the cost.
> ...


Um yes they have. Primestar had a few of the sports packages and after DirecTV bought them they became DirecTV exclusives in the minidish/cable world, you could still get them on c-band for a while afterwards though. InDemand got Center Ice and League Pass one year before Dish. NHL Center Ice may have been $79 at one point for half season, but I have the DirecTV brochure from back then in front of me for full season prices.

For the 97/98 Seasons

NFL Sunday Ticket - $159
NBA League pass - $159
NHL Center Ice - $139
MLB Extra Innings - $139
MLS Shootout - $49

Currently
NFL Sunday Ticket - $269
NBA League Pass - $179 (I think)
NHL Center Ice - $169
MLB Extra Innings - $159
MLS Direct Kick - $79

Sunday Ticket has went up $110, no other sports packages has went up anywhere near that amount. Now tell me if you really believe everything you posted.


----------



## PennHORN (Sep 13, 2007)

I agree with the author of the column first posted that there are a LOT of people who can not get DirecTV even if they want to. I used to live in Manhattan and it is virtually impossible to get D* there unless you are lucky and your building is pre-wired for MDU capability or if you had a balcony with southern sky access. Both are pretty f'in rare in Manhattan and I almost moved my wife and I to a building all the way on 11th Ave. JUST FOR D* and Sunday Ticket. You shouldn't have to jump through such hoops. There are millions of people who can't get D* even if they want it. That is why the ST exclusive sucks. If it was merely as easy as switching your phone provider, then there would be no beef; however, many have not option at all.

Believe me, being a Texans fan (yes I know laugh away) in NYC trying to fight for ONE TV in a crowded bar sucked. I would have paid ANYTHING to be able to get D* and ST.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Steve Mehs said:


> For the 97/98 Seasons
> NFL Sunday Ticket - $159
> 
> Currently
> ...


And what is the difference between the features offered in the package... the improved coverage of the package (as if I recall correctly back in the first years, there were still some games not offered)..

And the fact how much the "market" and $$$ values in 10 years have changed.... What was the average ticket price for an NFL game in 97... as compared today.... Heck... what was the average "parking lot" cost in '97 for a game compared to today....

I am actually suprised to see it is only up $110 in 10 years.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> ...
> Sunday Ticket has went up $110, no other sports packages has went up anywhere near that amount. Now tell me if you really believe everything you posted.


NFL Football has also grown astronomically in popularity while those other sports have languished in comparison. My guess is that that has much more to do with the price increase than the exclusivity of ST does.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I can't believe I'm reading what you just wrote. Now if this was reversed, if InDemand had the exclusive and it was raised 'only' $110 in the past 10 years and all the other packages were raised $20-$40, holy crap would people be complaining about the 'cable monopoly' and how much cable has raised rates and blah blah blah, but because it's the almighty DirecTV, it gets a free pass. 

Ticket and parking pricing has gone up for MLB, NHL and NBA games as well, player salaries have increased, so why is it Sunday Ticket 'only' went up $110? I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to put one and one together.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> I can't believe I'm reading what you just wrote. Now if this was reversed, if InDemand had the exclusive and it was raised 'only' $110 in the past 10 years and all the other packages were raised $20-$40, holy crap would people be complaining about the 'cable monopoly' and how much cable has raised rates and blah blah blah, but because it's the almighty DirecTV, it gets a free pass.
> 
> Ticket and parking pricing has gone up for MLB, NHL and NBA games as well, player salaries have increased, so why is it Sunday Ticket 'only' went up $110? I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to put one and one together.


If NFL is relying on only DirecTV forget about raises or new talent. Limited dollars coming in to fund that sport, with the exception of those who can go to the game in person at the stadium.


----------



## Bertrude (Nov 3, 2007)

jtn said:


> Jim, again that is not true, why did the price of the HR10 go down from $1000 to $299? Because more customers signed up for service in and HD programming right? So I disagree with your opinion.


jtn, you're consistently confusing cause with effect. The price of the HR10 went down because not enough people were buying them at the set cost. The price didn't go down because more people bought them, more people bought them because the price went down.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

jtn said:


> That price is unreasonable, in comparison to what the public funds for sports, there is simply not enough seats at the stadium to support the public or the teams expenses, so it's silly they don't look for the most money from opening the door to as many carriers as possible.


Here is the point you are missing: If any cable company/satcaster could carry any NFL game, then the local affiliates who help the network fund their payments to the NFL will balk and the networks will have to offer less to the NFL. Less money to the NFL.

If that happens, you will see more and more games moved to non-free networks as they are willing to pay the fees the NFL demands. This means less NFL games on free local networks. So the fans who don't have NFLN or ESPN suffer.

The NFL is going to get the money they want no matter what. Cable had a chance and refused to pay the cost. That's a cable problem.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> If NFL is relying on only DirecTV forget about raises or new talent. Limited dollars coming in to fund that sport, with the exception of those who can go to the game in person at the stadium.


So where is the "new talent" going to go play?

Do you think all the talen for the sport is going to stop playing for the NFL? And go on with their carrers they actually are getting degrees for?

Two VERY different aspects of the bigger picture...

Let's bring it back to a little bit of reality


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2007)

KurtV said:


> Nobody slapped down anybody. D*s deal with MLB for EI always had a provision in it for InDemand to pony up and be part of it. In Demand just didn't like the cost and so initially balked (yes, fully intended). They heard from their subscribers and reconsidered. The politicians had nothing to do with it.


Incorrect. DirecTV made an exclusive deal for EI, then reworked the deal after an uproar that included Kerry and other politicians threatening to intervene. Whether you agree or not, this is interstate commerce and Congress has the right to regulate how these companies do business.



KurtV said:


> I, for one, am sick and tired of blustering politicians, who know nothing about these issues (e.g. Kerry's idiotic comments about Brookline residents not being able to see the Sox if EI was exclusive to D*), threatening legitimate businesses.


It's obvious these "blustering politicians" know what their constituents want, and that's who they are supposed to represent.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So where is the "new talent" going to go play?
> 
> Do you think all the talen for the sport is going to stop playing for the NFL? And go on with their carrers they actually are getting degrees for?
> 
> ...


Listen Earl, most athletes get a free education, and don't need to go to class. Colleges discriminate and always have, they are not all inclusive (non-inclusive = discrimination). It's always been that way. Those who can play sports well get a free ride, that is reality. Don't tell me you don't know this. Many athletes have confessed to this.

You seem to attack my posts continually, and I will hold my ground. I'm going to let the members make their own opinions on the facts at hand.

I know you claim not to be paid for this forum, but I don't believe that either, I don't think that is reality, since you seem to be on 24/7, do you ever sleep?

If Ireland can offer free education to all it's citizens from kindergarten through doctorate level college why can't America if America is the best and most powerful country in the world?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Incorrect. DirecTV made an exclusive deal for EI, then reworked the deal after an uproar that included Kerry and other politicians threatening to intervene. Whether you agree or not, this is interstate commerce and Congress has the right to regulate how these companies do business.


If they want to regulate it... then they should pass laws and regulations... 
Not use last minute threats of "other" action...
Aka... you do that... then we will do this to you...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> Listen Earl, most athletes get a free education, and don't need to go to class. Colleges discriminate and always have, they are not all inclusive (non-inclusive = discrimination). It's always been that way. Those who can play sports well get a free ride, that is reality. Don't tell me you don't know this. Many athletes have confessed to this.
> 
> You seem to attack my posts continually, and I will hold my ground. I'm going to let the members make their own opinions on the facts at hand.
> 
> I know you claim not to be paid for this forum, but I don't believe that either, I don't think that is reality, since you seem to be on 24/7, do you ever sleep?


Actually "most" athletes don't get free education... a vast majority of the NCAA athletes don't get schollarships... even on the football/basketball teams. IIRC... aren't there regulations on how many schollarships teams can give out......

I am not attacking your posts, because they are yours... I just completely disagree with most of what you are saying today.

Actually yes... I sleep on average of 7 hours a night...
And yes... I work a full time job... and yes, I get all my work done.

And yes... I am not paid a dime to do what I do here... this is my hobby and I love doing it.
And it is even days like this that get me "juiced up" to keep doing it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> For the 97/98 Seasons
> 
> NFL Sunday Ticket - $159
> NBA League pass - $159
> ...


And don't forget Superfan. Sunday Ticket has gone up a lot more than $110 if you have to pay the Superfan fee.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> If Ireland can offer free education to all it's citizens from kindergarten through doctorate level college why can't America if America is the best and most powerful country in the world?


That is an ENTIRELY different topic of discussion... and one we won't even have here on this forum, as we are not going to get into the politics of that.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Actually "most" athletes don't get free education... a vast majority of the NCAA athletes don't get schollarships... even on the football/basketball teams. IIRC... aren't there regulations on how many schollarships teams can give out......
> 
> I am not attacking your posts, because they are yours... I just completely disagree with most of what you are saying today.
> 
> ...


You missed my update about Ireland offering all education for free for all it's citizens regardless of athletic abilities from kindergarten through doctorate level education.

The athletes that don't have to pay for college that make it, probably already are wealthy and were selected, so here we go again with discrimination. Don't tell me Earl you haven't experienced it.

I see on other posts you admit to others when you make errors, but with me it's a different story.

I think your full-time job is on this site, so I guess that qualifies.


----------



## Dan Serafini (Feb 6, 2007)

jtn said:


> You missed my update about Ireland offering all education for free for all it's citizens regardless of athletic abilities from kindergarten through doctorate level education.
> 
> The athletes that don't have to pay for college that make it, probably already are wealthy and were selected, so here we go again with discrimination. Don't tell me Earl you haven't experienced it.
> 
> ...


BORING!


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> That is an ENTIRELY different topic of discussion... and one we won't even have here on this forum, as we are not going to get into the politics of that.


Why not, it's hard to admit that Ireland is better than America when it comes to education? It has everything to do with this topic.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> Why not, it's hard to admit that Ireland is better than America when it comes to education? It has everything to do with this topic.


What?

What does Ireland having the ability, and taking the necessary steps to offer free education to it's citizens have to do with a Company offering it's product exclusively to another another Company for distribution?

:backtotop


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What?
> 
> What does Ireland having the ability, and taking the necessary steps to offer free education to it's citizens have to do with a Company offering it's product exclusively to another another Company for distribution?
> 
> :backtotop


Oh yes I understand your need to be the center of attention, and be right in the eyes of members. Truth is many agree with what I have said, as they are bright and see between the lines Earl.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

jtn said:


> You have misconstrued what I have said, but yet you have confirmed by saying "with a product of service that is price elastic, the lower the cost, the higher the demand."
> 
> You have obviously have loyalty to other members and despite the fact I agree with the more who buy the less the cost, you just are trying to confuse the viewers of this forum. You need to pay more attention to what you say jwd, I don't flip flop.


I did not mis-quote at all. Look at my post. I quoted yours verbatim. I quoted your post #200 in my post #206

Again you said it backward. It is not: "the more who buy, the lower the costs". It is: with lower cost there will be more demand.

What loyalty do I have to other members? What I don't want the government to stick their nose it to this.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> You missed my update about Ireland offering all education for free for all it's citizens regardless of athletic abilities from kindergarten through doctorate level education.
> 
> The athletes that don't have to pay for college that make it, probably already are wealthy and were selected, so here we go again with discrimination. Don't tell me Earl you haven't experienced it.
> 
> ...


Last comment on this particular trend:
Please, I went to a public university... and lived with people that where NCAA athletes that were not on schollarship, not from rich backgrounds... that simply did the sport as something they wanted to do.

I have issues with the way that Student Athletes "shop" themselves around because of the opportunities to make it to the "pros" versus the opportunity they have because of their talents to get a higher education for "free"....

But other then that....

You can believe what ever you want about me... I have stated publicly what I do as my career and this is a hobby of mine... want to debate that..... we can take that else where... as that also has nothing to do with Sunday Ticket and it exclusive contract with DirecTV.


----------



## Spazzman (Oct 8, 2006)

Spazzman predicts that DTV will renew their agreement for NFL ST and they will be upwards of $1,000,000,000 for it.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I have to say something here, Rcoleman and myself have not always got along here, and we don't always see eye to eye but I have to give him props for being one of the very few in this thread with any common sense on the issue. Your comprehension on this topic is remarkable, and I do mean that sincerely. 
:up:

I get that you all want to defend your DirecTV, just like I defend TW Cable, but the rest of you need to take off your DirecTV blinders. I know my cable company wouldn't be as good as it is today without the intense competition from Dish and DirecTV. Competition has caused price increases to slow down, quality and reliability to improve. Competition has had a favorable result on myself and the other 68% of those in my cable franchises market who have cable TV not DBS. So I don’t understand why the rest of you feel having competition in the Sunday Ticket game would be a bad thing. 

Yeah the NFL has risen in popularity, but that still doesn't explain the increase to the magnitude that it is. I think baseball has to be the worst when it comes to player salaries, and as for ticket pricing and parking, this is only one market, a smaller one, but Bills tickets have been consistently priced over the years, Sabres ticket prices have stayed about the same ever since variable pricing was introduced. About 10 years ago for both parking was $15, now lot parking for both Ralph Wilson Stadium and HSBC Arena are $25.

There may be a few little factors into the increase of Sunday Ticket, but none as great as the fact it’s an exclusive. And if it was a Dish or InDemand exclusive it probably would still be the same price as it is now. If the HD games and other Super Fan nonsense were included in that $269 figure, it's a stretch but yeah I could say the package has increased in value, not $110 in value but still.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> I did not mis-quote at all. Look at my post. I quoted yours verbatim. I quoted your post #200 in my post #206
> 
> Again you said it backward. It is not: "the more who buy, the lower the costs". It is: with lower cost there will be more demand.
> 
> What loyalty do I have to other members? What I don't want the government to stick their nose it to this.


So the government isn't fair all the time, maybe, yes that may be true in education, but in fairness to the majority of those in this country I think the goal is to get sports to as many citizens as possible, that is healthy. Do you disagree with that?


----------



## jimb726 (Jan 9, 2007)

jtn said:


> Jim, again that is not true, why did the price of the HR10 go down from $1000 to $299? Because more customers signed up for service in and HD programming right? So I disagree with your opinion.


I would assume that the price went down for any of several reasons, demand exceeded supply, they can give them away now, even on ebay. Perhaps the manufacturer was able to realize economies of scale through mass production ( not applicable to ST since there is one vendor, the NFL and one supplier DirecTv) or finally perhaps it had ended it useful life cycle. any one of which will cause the price to drop. And it does in fact agree with what I was saying, as long as there is a demand, the price stays up, once the demand slows, the price will drop or the product will die. Neither is the case with the NFL or Sunday Ticket.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

jimb726 said:


> I would assume that the price went down for any of several reasons, demand exceeded supply, they can give them away now, even on ebay. Perhaps the manufacturer was able to realize economies of scale through mass production ( not applicable to ST since there is one vendor, the NFL and one supplier DirecTv) or finally perhaps it had ended it useful life cycle. any one of which will cause the price to drop. And it does in fact agree with what I was saying, as long as there is a demand, the price stays up, once the demand slows, the price will drop or the product will die. Neither is the case with the NFL or Sunday Ticket.


They can give it away because it doesn't cost much as they claim to produce. Second many customers changed to HD, this helped them cut costs, and much of what you say confirms what I have been saying all along. Read what I say carefully.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> So the government isn't fair all the time, maybe, yes that may be true in education, but in fairness to the majority of those in this country I think the goal is to get sports to as many citizens as possible, that is healthy. Do you disagree with that?


Sports in the context of NFL Sunday Ticket... is just entertainment.
Honestly... no different then a movie or a TV show... it is entertainment.


----------



## jimb726 (Jan 9, 2007)

jtn said:


> So the government isn't fair all the time, maybe, yes that may be true in education, but in fairness to the majority of those in this country I think the goal is to get sports to as many citizens as possible, that is healthy. Do you disagree with that?


You cannot be implying that the government should somehow be involved with making sure that everyone is able to recieve sports on all types of media, are you? Ther is no way that the government should even be involved with this. This is business plain and simple, the product was offered up, DirecTv paid more than anyone else did and as a result it is on their proghramming exclusively. It is amazing that companies want to somehow blame everyone else for their own business decisions. Obviously the cable companies didnt see the value in it, and chose not to bid on it. I respect that, but whose fault is that? Now in this case the NFL has reaped what they have sown, the chose exclusivity for their games but then they want to run to congress when the cable companies wont carry the NFL network. Maybe they would be willing to carry it if they had a slice of the ST. We will see in 2011.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> They can give it away because it doesn't cost much as they claim to produce. Second many customers changed to HD, this helped them cut costs, and much of what you say confirms what I have been saying all along. Read what I say carefully.


How does many customers changing to HD, help them cut costs.

They still have to broadcast all the games in HD and SD... so until the last customer switches to HD, or they decide to end the SD feed... where are the cost cuts?


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

jtn said:


> So the government isn't fair all the time, maybe, yes that may be true in education, but in fairness to the majority of those in this country I think the goal is to get sports to as many citizens as possible, that is healthy. Do you disagree with that?


What? You have completely lost me. I though this was about NFL ST and their exclusive agreement with DTV.

What goal about getting sports to as many citizens as possible? Where did that come from? Whose goal is that? I must have missed that in school. Was that part of the Magna Carta? John Locke's writings? The Declaration of Independence? The Federalist Papers? The Constitution?

Where did this notion come from? Watching sporting events is entertainment. Nothing more (nothing less).


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> What? You have completely lost me. I though this was about NFL ST and their exclusive agreement with DTV.
> 
> What goal about getting sports to as many citizens as possible? Where did that come from? Whose goal is that? I must have missed that in school. Was that part of the Magna Carta? John Locke's writings? The Declaration of Independence? The Federalist Papers? The Constitution?
> 
> Where did this notion come from? Watching sporting events is entertainment. Nothing more (nothing less).


Yes that is true and should not be restricted to one company.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Now in this case the NFL has reaped what they have sown, the chose exclusivity for their games but then they want to run to congress when the cable companies wont carry the NFL network. Maybe they would be willing to carry it if they had a slice of the ST. We will see in 2011.


This effects Comcast and Time Warner more then anyone. Initially I read that Time Warner had a fit about having NFL Network but no Sunday Ticket, but it's looks more like TW wants the NFL Network in their Sports Tier not in a main package. This I agree with. Not because of the issues surrounding a la carte and all that, I'm against a la carte, but both NBA TV and NHL Network are a part of the Sports Tier with TW, these are specialty sports channels. Most TW divisions have REDUCED the price of the Sports Tier from $4.95/month to $1.95 (some are still at the old price however) and it's included for at no additional cost for those that have higher end triple play bundles. When I had DirecTV I saw no real value to the NFL Network. Would I like it? Yes. Do I have to have it? No. Maybe one day we'll have it, but I'm very happy with the NHL Network at the moment.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> If they want to regulate it... then they should pass laws and regulations...
> Not use last minute threats of "other" action...
> Aka... you do that... then we will do this to you...


And that's exactly what Congress did in the early '70s when they outlawed blackouts of sold-out games. Pete Rozelle used some of the same arguments we've seen here - that it's a business and they should be able to operate however they see fit without any government regulation whatsoever. The answer they got from members of Congress was pretty blunt: "We made you guys rich by letting the NFL and AFL merge, which would otherwise violate antitrust laws. Now it's time to give something back".

Kerry and other politicians were simply looking out for their constituents in shooting down the exclusive EI deal. In this case, they didn't need to pass legislation - the mere threat caused MLB to cave. Whether they would do the same with Sunday Ticket remains to be seen, but there isn't any question that Congress has the legal authority to regulate such deals if it chooses to do so.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> but there isn't any question that Congress has the legal authority to regulate such deals if it chooses to do so.


Nope... there isn't...
Since it is there own regulations that have caused the need for Sunday Ticket and EI, Center Ice, ect...

(Aka.. the rules and regulation that forbid the rebroadcasting of an affiliate in one market to another)


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Steve Mehs said:


> Um yes they have. Primestar had a few of the sports packages and after DirecTV bought them they became DirecTV exclusives in the minidish/cable world, you could still get them on c-band for a while afterwards though. InDemand got Center Ice and League Pass one year before Dish. NHL Center Ice may have been $79 at one point for half season, but I have the DirecTV brochure from back then in front of me for full season prices.
> 
> For the 97/98 Seasons
> 
> ...


Just look at ticket prices for said sports in that time. :eek2:

I know I paid $129 full season rate for Center Ice in 2002 and it was the only season I got Center Ice. Maybe it was early bird or something.

In any case, the NFL is widely more popular then any of those other sports. I was shocked to see how little subs in total Extra Innings got when the numbers came out in the spring. Sunday Ticket has triple to quadruple the subs. NFL is king. Other sports...not so much.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Had to be early bird. I'm now looking at a DirecTV brochure from 3/2001. (I used to collect Dish and DirecTV literature) Given early bird is typically $20 off for NHL CI and NBA LP, $129 would make sense.

NFL Sunday Ticket - $169
NBA League Pass - $169
NHL Center Ice - $149
MLB Extra Innings - $149
MLS Shootout - Not Given


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Wow! .. missed this thread somehow .. I see we have a one-man war against DIRECTV and the US Government for allowing a private organization (the NFL) to sign an exclusive arrangement with DIRECTV to distribute NFL games to out-of-market stations. Since the NFL has the Copyright on the content (a.k.a the games) that they put on they are covered by United States Copyright Law.

I guess it's nice for the Cable Companies and EchoStar that someone is so vehemently opposing this exclusive agreement here in a DIRECTV forum .. probably not the right place to seek supporters.

As for legality .. As I recall, there is an exclusive contract with DIRECTV. EchoStar and the Cable TV companies could have placed their bid when DIRECTV did last. I'm sure the opportunity will come up for them to do it again.

Would I be happy if it were more open .. Don't know? But Ireland? how the heck does that even come into play here .. last I heard, DIRECTV was under US Jurisdiction and we don't follow Irish Law or Custom here (except for maybe St. Patrick's Day).


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> I guess it's nice for the Cable Companies and EchoStar that someone is so vehemently opposing this exclusive agreement here in a DIRECTV forum .. probably not the right place to seek supporters.


I don't give a ratsass if I'm agreed with or supported or not. The question posed was 'It's time to open up NFL Sunday Ticket to everyone?' and I'm voicing my opinion on it. Have a problem with that, since my opinion doesn't favor the almighty DirecTV?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

jtn said:


> It's too bad you can't get the programming you can afford, and yes it is fine to watch college football, but you still want to have the ability to watch any game at reasonable prices. The higher the demand the lower the cost.


jtn,

I don't think there's any price I'd pay for it...just not that interested in the NFL any longer. Now, if it was the XFL that would be different...that league was fun!


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Now, if it was the XFL that would be different...that league was fun!


So you were the one viewer :lol:


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Nope... there isn't...
> Since it is there own regulations that have caused the need for Sunday Ticket and EI, Center Ice, ect...
> 
> (Aka.. the rules and regulation that forbid the rebroadcasting of an affiliate in one market to another)


Earl,

Who do you think lobbied Congress to get that? The N.A.B. is no one's friend. My favorite is their campaign against the Sirius/XM merger.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

jtn said:


> Yes that is true and should not be restricted to one company.


Why? Two business entered into a legal arrangement. You just don't happen to like that arrangement.

What law has the NFL and DirecTV broken with this contract? If they have broken some law, then "Nail'em!!"

Let's try this another way:

NBC has a very popular show called: Heroes. Only NBC (and its parent Universal) get to decide what they what to do with Heroes. Not CBS, not ABC, not anyone else, NBC.

How is NBC's asserting its rights over Heroes any different that the NFL asserting its right over ST


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> Incorrect. DirecTV made an exclusive deal for EI, then reworked the deal after an uproar that included Kerry and other politicians threatening to intervene. Whether you agree or not, this is interstate commerce and Congress has the right to regulate how these companies do business.
> *No, non-exclusivity was part of the original deal with D*; this is a well established fact. In-demand just didn't want to match D*'s deal initially. They eventually paid the piper.*
> 
> It's obvious these "blustering politicians" know what their constituents want, and that's who they are supposed to represent.


My point was that Kerry (and others) were completely wrong on the facts; nobody in the metro Boston area was going to be denied Sox games because EI was exclusive to D*. Those games were going to be carried in that area by whoever had the local rights. This was about fans who lived out of their team's market being able to subscribe to EI so as to be able to see their team. In the end he (and the rest of the BPs) had very little to nothing to do with EI being picked up by the In Demand conglomerate.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> So you were the one viewer :lol:


No, I was one of the 25,000 season ticket holders for the Orlando Rage (They sold out several of their games and broke the beer consumption record for the Citrus Bowl four times that season). It was more fun than I've ever had at any NFL game. The TV broadcasts were okay...I did like that they put a cameraman on the field.

I thought the whole attack on the XFL was ridiculous...although Vince McMahon brought that on himself. The funny part was people complaining that the XFL cheerleaders were too sleazy.

Of course, I was also a season ticket holder for the NJ Generals


----------



## schlar01 (Jul 16, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> Why? Two business entered into a legal arrangement. You just don't happen to like that arrangement.
> 
> What law has the NFL and DirecTV broken with this contract? If they have broken some law, then "Nail'em!!"
> 
> ...


There isn't a specific law against monopolies to my knowledge - but that doesn't mean they aren't broken up all the time.

Your example is flawed. I think the government would get involved if NBC made its content available only on D*. NBC is available on any carrier, not just D*. What if D* signed every content provider to an exclusive contract? That would certainly be monopolistic behavior which results in less competition and less consumer choice. The government lets MLB, the NFL, etc get away with a lot more than they would if it was not professional sports. I wish it would change because everyone wins with more competition.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> Why? Two business entered into a legal arrangement. You just don't happen to like that arrangement.
> 
> What law has the NFL and DirecTV broken with this contract? If they have broken some law, then "Nail'em!!"
> 
> ...


NBC is a national channel and available to almost all people in the US for free in SD and HD. No restrictions to the consumer.


----------



## KUMA1 (Nov 6, 2007)

ClubSteeler said:


> Once you honor your commitment with D*, cancel total choice and keep NFLST. Then every year, NFLST will auto-renew for you. I have been doing this for years. Every Sunday during football season, I pull out the D* receiver, watch my steelers game, and put it away.
> 
> If you read the D* terms and conditions, it states, and I quote:
> 
> ...


Can anyone find this and post a link? I have been looking to see if I can cancel my total choice pkg that I have had for the last 8 years or so and just stay with the NFL Sunday Ticket.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

schlar01 said:


> Your example is flawed. I think the government would get involved if NBC made its content available only on D*.


Wait a second! In my example, NBC owns the content they can and do decide what distribution channel to put out their content all the time. What part of the government would have jurisdiction over NBC setting up an exclusive arrangement with any of its content?

The NFL owns the content they can and should be able to enter into any agreement they please as long as it is legal to do so.

Again, I must be missing the point. Exclusivity agreements are everywhere. Examples abound: Big Mac only available at McDonald's, OnStar only on GM. Air Jordan's only through Nike, Beatles music only through Apple Records. To name 4 that jumped to mind.

I understand that you may not like the fact that NFL (the content owner) decided what it was going to do with its content. Yes, I know that the government has stuck it nose into this before and in its good intentions actually created the environment where ST got created.

Unless you can can document specific instances where what the NFL and DTV did violates a specific law, please let this die.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

jtn said:


> NBC is a national channel and available to almost all people in the US for free in SD and HD. No restrictions to the consumer.


I take it then that you are also against Monday Night Football being exclusive to ESPN, which is restricted to those that want to pay it.

Or NFL games being on the NFL Network which again is available only to those that want to pay it or are lucky to have a cable company that actually carries it.

Or the NBA having exclusive games on TNT.

Or the NHL having exlucsive games on Versus.

These deals are no different then Sunday Ticket being exclusive to the highest bidder.


----------



## jimb726 (Jan 9, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> I take it then that you are also against Monday Night Football being exclusive to ESPN, which is restricted to those that want to pay it.
> 
> Or NFL games being on the NFL Network which again is available only to those that want to pay it or are lucky to have a cable company that actually carries it.
> 
> ...


Let me preface by saying I have absolutely no problem with the current arrangement. However I think the big rub is, ESPN is available virtually everywhere through cablecos, whether people choose to subscribe or not is up to them. The only logical argument I hear is that many people (how many is the question) cannot even choose to pick Directv because of LOS issues or some other reason that Directv cannot be an option for them.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> I take it then that you are also against Monday Night Football being exclusive to ESPN, which is restricted to those that want to pay it.
> 
> Or NFL games being on the NFL Network which again is available only to those that want to pay it or are lucky to have a cable company that actually carries it.
> 
> ...


Why should those with money control everything? Not everybody has money, count your lucky stars you have a life you want. There has to be something that doesn't cost. The main networks are free for those without deep pockets (they get money from advertising like DirecTV sort of double dipping with DirecTV and other carriers who charge). The wealthy seem to want to have something to brag about, by screwing over those who have less, well those with not a windfall are not all bad people.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> Why should those with money control everything? Not everybody has money, count your lucky stars you have a life you want. There has to be something that doesn't cost. The main networks are free for those without deep pockets (they get money from advertising like DirecTV sort of double dipping with DirecTV and other carriers who charge). The wealthy seem to want to have something to brag about, by screwing over those who have less, well those with not a windfall are not all bad people.


Well... if you haven't looked.... we are not living in Utopia...

Everything has a cost.... and until you can eliminate those costs... then they have to be paid for if you want access to them.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

jtn said:


> Why should those with money control everything? Not everybody has money, count your lucky stars you have a life you want. There has to be something that doesn't cost. The main networks are free for those without deep pockets (they get money from advertising like DirecTV sort of double dipping with DirecTV and other carriers who charge). The wealthy seem to want to have something to brag about, by screwing over those who have less, well those with not a windfall are not all bad people.


If you think broadcast network TV is free you're sadly mistaken. The costs may be less direct but they're no less real. Who do you think pays for all that advertising that pays for all those production and distribution costs (and profits)?


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

KurtV said:


> If you think broadcast network TV is free you're sadly mistaken. The costs may be less direct but they're no less real. Who do you think pays for all that advertising that pays for all those production and distribution costs (and profits)?


I think the advertisers do. Who else?


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

jtn said:


> I think the advertisers do. Who else?


And do you think the "advertisers" pay for this out of their own pockets? Each of those "advertisers" passes along the cost of that ad in the product they sell. I don't think only the wealthy drink Bud or Pepsi or drive Ford's and Chevy's. In the end "we" all pay for that "free" network...and that's the way it has always been (and always will be).


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

bluemoon737 said:


> And do you think the "advertisers" pay for this out of their own pockets? Each of those "advertisers" passes along the cost of that ad in the product they sell. I don't think only the wealthy drink Bud or Pepsi or drive Ford's and Chevy's. In the end "we" all pay for that "free" network...and that's the way it has always been (and always will be).


So why pay more than one time then?


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

jtn said:


> So why pay more than one time then?


You're paying for the "extras".

Don't want to pay, then feel free to watch your local team on "FREE TV" every weekend.

Want to see the other games each week... then you get to pay, because 2 entities who are well within their rights to do so entered into an exclusive agreement that requires you to pay if you want out of market games.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> You're paying for the "extras".
> 
> Don't want to pay, then feel free to watch your local team on "FREE TV" every weekend.
> 
> Want to see the other games each week... then you get to pay, because 2 entities who are well within their rights to do so entered into an exclusive agreement that requires you to pay if you want out of market games.


If they can't charge for in market why do they charge for out of market? Advertisers pay regardless of market.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

jtn said:


> If they can't charge for in market why do they charge for out of market? Advertisers pay regardless of market.


What do you mean they "can't charge for in market"?

You pay for every channel that you receive on DirecTV. Locals, Nationals, doesn't matter. Don't want to pay, then you'll get a whopping grand total of ZERO channels.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> What do you mean they "can't charge for in market"?
> 
> You pay for every channel that you receive on DirecTV. Locals, Nationals, doesn't matter. Don't want to pay, then you'll get a whopping grand total of ZERO channels.


The point is this Sharkie, they double dip and get paid twice, and if you think that DirecTV or any other carrier is in the poor house then you need to learn more about advertising and how they pay a company. They don't charge for in market to promote sales of the programming especially sports which they are paid by the customers who are unaware that advertisers really cover the bill.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> If they can't charge for in market why do they charge for out of market? Advertisers pay regardless of market.


Advertisers pay rates VERY SPECIFIC to the market that those ad's are being aired/displayed

If you want to continue down that... you then get into the aspects of the royalties for the actors in those commercials, and the rates they want for the broadcast of those commercials accross the nation, ect... which would in turn cost the advertisers more... which means we would have to pay more for the goods they are advertising... ect... ect...


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Advertisers pay rates VERY SPECIFIC to the market that those ad's are being aired/displayed
> 
> If you want to continue down that... you then get into the aspects of the royalties for the actors in those commercials, and the rates they want for the broadcast of those commercials accross the nation, ect... which would in turn cost the advertisers more... which means we would have to pay more for the goods they are advertising... ect... ect...


Advertising companies have markets all over the world Earl. You know that. Enough said, they pay all companies/carriers for that. What you say confirms what I say.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

jtn said:


> If they can't charge for in market why do they charge for out of market? Advertisers pay regardless of market.


Again, you don't like the agreement that DTV and the NFL have. You think it is unfair and you want the Feds to step in and do something. The problems is that the Feds have no jurisdiction in this matter as long as the contact is legal.

I ask again, what law or regulation have they broken? and if so, what part of the government has jurisdiction?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jtn said:


> Advertising companies have markets all over the world Earl. You know that. Enough said, they pay all companies/carriers for that. What you say confirms what I say.


You are very correct, they are all over the world.

But a given "advertisement", the rates are dictated by the specific market they are airing too. It is not a "global" flat rate.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jtn said:


> Why should those with money control everything? Not everybody has money, count your lucky stars you have a life you want. There has to be something that doesn't cost. The main networks are free for those without deep pockets (they get money from advertising like DirecTV sort of double dipping with DirecTV and other carriers who charge). The wealthy seem to want to have something to brag about, by screwing over those who have less, well those with not a windfall are not all bad people.


Welcome to America .. This *IS* what capitalism is all about.


----------



## schlar01 (Jul 16, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> Again, you don't like the agreement that DTV and the NFL have. You think it is unfair and you want the Feds to step in and do something. The problems is that the Feds have no jurisdiction in this matter as long as the contact is legal.
> 
> I ask again, what law or regulation have they broken? and if so, what part of the government has jurisdiction?


Well, I doubt anyone here is a lawyer so that may be difficult to answer. The government most definitely has an interest in preventing or limiting monopolistic behavior. Many a company has been broken up as a result of having a monopoly that has been judged not to be in America's best interest.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jtn said:


> The point is this Sharkie, they double dip and get paid twice, and if you think that DirecTV or any other carrier is in the poor house then you need to learn more about advertising and how they pay a company. They don't charge for in market to promote sales of the programming especially sports which they are paid by the customers who are unaware that advertisers really cover the bill.


jtn .. you might be surprised to learn that in a free market society things end up getting priced at where the supply/demand meet. The NFL is getting it's money from DIRECTV and sets the rules on distribution. The rules are set so that the "free" stations can have their advertisements shown on the local channels while the out-of-market games are shown on NFL-ST.

If it were profitable for DIRECTV/NFL to give it to you for free, then they would .. In this case, the demand is much higher so from their perspective, why leave money on the table.

Trust me, I'd love to get the NFL ST for free But knowing that DIRECTV has to pay the NFL a boat load of money for distribution rights, I'm a realist .. it ain't gonna be free to me either. If I (and others) didn't pay for NFL ST, then DIRECTV would have zero incentive to pay for the rights and therefore we would not have it.

As for other mediums getting it .. Heck I don't care if they do or not .. Again, I'd love the price break, but Copyright Law is what it is and the NFL has the right to do what it does whether I like it or not. So your choice is pay DIRECTV to get it or do without - no free lunch here.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

davemayo said:


> Some people think that D* would crash and burn if it lost ST. I'm not so sure about that. What do others think?


I don't agree with that. E* exists afterall.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

First I apologize it I have come off as rude to members, I am still learning how things work. DBSTalk is a great site to get the facts. I really do want to give the correct facts to you all. So if I have given wrong info I do apologize.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

schlar01 said:


> Well, I doubt anyone here is a lawyer so that may be difficult to answer. The government most definitely has an interest in preventing or limiting monopolistic behavior. Many a company has been broken up as a result of having a monopoly that has been judged not to be in America's best interest.


Monopolies in and of themselves are not illegal. McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs. You can only by Air Jordon's from Nike. The Sherman Act requires more and just the presence or absence of a monopoly for a criminal act to have transpired.


----------



## jared52 (Sep 24, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> Monopolies in and of themselves are not illegal. McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs. You can only by Air Jordon's from Nike. The Sherman Act requires more and just the presence or absence of a monopoly for a criminal act to have transpired.


Wow, that's got to be the worst definition of a monopoly I have ever seen. Trademarks and monopolies are NOT the same. If Nike was the controlling the market and were the only shoe company in the country, you have a monopoly. f McDonald's had the only hamburgers, it would be a monopoly.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Found an interesting web site ..

http://voluntarytrade.org/newsite/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12


> Although contracts between television networks and professional sports leagues are immune from antitrust scrutiny under a 1961 congressional exemption, a superseding 1966 law withdrew immunity for any professional football game telecast on Friday night or Saturday if any high school or college football game was being played within 75 miles of the broadcast station that same day.
> 
> The 1966 rule was part of a law exempting the NFL's merger with the American Football League from antitrust review. Oliva said the National Collegiate Athletic Association lobbied Congress for the Friday-Saturday ban in order to prevent the NFL from telecasting games at the same time most college and high school football games were being played.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Earl,
> 
> Who do you think lobbied Congress to get that? The N.A.B. is no one's friend. My favorite is their campaign against the Sirius/XM merger.


You're right - the NAB is no one's friend. It is the political arm of the broadcasters. It's the reason the rules are always stacked in favor of the broadcasters.


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

jtn said:


> I think the advertisers do. Who else?


You and me, brother. We're the source of the advertisers money. At the end of the day the consumer pays for it all.

That's where the expression, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" comes from.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

jared52 said:


> Wow, that's got to be the worst definition of a monopoly I have ever seen. Trademarks and monopolies are NOT the same. If Nike was the controlling the market and were the only shoe company in the country, you have a monopoly. f McDonald's had the only hamburgers, it would be a monopoly.


It was not a definition. They were examples of monopolies none the less. While McDonald's does not have a monopoly on hamburgers is does have a monopoly on Big Macs. The NFL does not have a monopoly on either professional sports or on football. The own the content of NFL football. Why is letting the group that owns something do what they want with that thing not OK.

The NFL has a product that they are entitled to distribute how they see fit. If they want to give it away, that is OK. If they want to sell any and or all of it to the highest bidder that is OK


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

KurtV said:


> You and me, brother. We're the source of the advertisers money. At the end of the day the consumer pays for it all.
> 
> That's where the expression, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" comes from.


Yes, I need to get out of my dream world.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2007)

KurtV said:


> No, non-exclusivity was part of the original deal with D*; this is a well established fact. In-demand just didn't want to match D*'s deal initially. They eventually paid the piper.


Incorrect again. DirecTV was on the verge of finalizing an exclusive deal for EI. When news of that deal got out, they reworked it to give the cable companies the opportunity to buy in.



KurtV said:


> My point was that Kerry (and others) were completely wrong on the facts; nobody in the metro Boston area was going to be denied Sox games because EI was exclusive to D*. Those games were going to be carried in that area by whoever had the local rights. This was about fans who lived out of their team's market being able to subscribe to EI so as to be able to see their team. In the end he (and the rest of the BPs) had very little to nothing to do with EI being picked up by the In Demand conglomerate.


Kerry represents the state of Massachusetts, not just the Boston area. There are a lot of Red Sox fans in Massachusetts who don't live in Boston. And pressure from Kerry and other politicians did in fact have a lot to do with stopping that exclusive deal.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Some people think that D* would crash and burn if it lost ST. I'm not so sure about that. What do others think?


DirecTV wouldn't crash and burn, but it would be a major blow to where it hurts the most, the marketing department.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> And pressure from Kerry and other politicians did in fact have a lot to do with stopping that exclusive deal.


Please show me where in the Constitution, a U.S. senator has the right to get in the middle of a contract negotiation between two businesses?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Well, the NFL, MLB and NBA are pretty much monopolies and antitrust rules could apply ..


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> Incorrect again. DirecTV was on the verge of finalizing an exclusive deal for EI. When news of that deal got out, they reworked it to give the cable companies the opportunity to buy in.
> 
> *I think you're incorrect on this point, but I was not privy to the behind-closed-doors negotiations between MLB and D* so i can't say for sure. The public information that was available, however, was that the offer to In Demand to include them if they matched D*'s offer was part of the original MLB/D* deal (inumerable news stories relate this story as fact). Would D* have liked an exclusive deal? I'm sure they would have. Was MLB prepared to lock out In Demand if they refused to pony up? Probably so. Neither of those things means that they weren't part of the original deal, though.
> 
> ...


I paraphrased a specific statement byKerry about Sox fans in Brookline. He could not have been more wrong in that statement and it was not about other people in Mass.

The offer to in Demand to match D*'s offer was made before he or any other politician started bloviating; that argues against your assertion that he had "a lot" to do with the final deal.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Found an interesting web site ..
> 
> http://voluntarytrade.org/newsite/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12
> 
> ...


And this is why you don't see Saturday NFL games until after Thanksgiving and college football is over.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

jtn said:


> Why should those with money control everything? Not everybody has money, count your lucky stars you have a life you want. There has to be something that doesn't cost. The main networks are free for those without deep pockets (they get money from advertising like DirecTV sort of double dipping with DirecTV and other carriers who charge). The wealthy seem to want to have something to brag about, by screwing over those who have less, well those with not a windfall are not all bad people.


Well, this is a capitalist country and thus those with money control things. Heck, it's that way anywhere. 

Anyway, I'm not limitless on money. But I "sacrifice" for my Sunday Ticket fix. One less Pizza and 2 less Big Mac meals a month is all it takes to pay for Sunday Ticket. And I eat better to boot.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

Interesting thread. One aspect that hasn't really been addressed is the one aspect that makes ST unique. NFL games -- ALL NFL regular and post-season games -- are part of packages sold by the NFL to national networks. The other sports regular season games are sold both nationally AND locally. Local teams in the NBA, MLB and NHL sell their own games to regional networks. And NFL teams, obviously only play once a week.

That's what makes it hard to compare ST with Center Ice, for example. Opening up ST to other carriers would make the NFL contract less valuable to the individual FOX and CBS affiliates. The fact that I can watch an out of market hockey game on FSN Detroit probably doesn't bother FSN Florida or SUN Sports (my local RSNs). If I couldn't get CI, that doesn't mean I'd be watching the Lightning or the Panthers on that particular night, and they know that. ST subscribers would still watch the NFL, even if ST went away. And the affliates know that, too.

There are so many other players in the other sports. Games are on so many different outlets. Look at MLB. Games on FOX, TBS, RSN's, local OTA stations, even team-owned networks (YES, STO, etc). No parallel exists in the NFL. 

I don't have ST and don't care if cable gets it, but it seems to me to be none of the government's business. There is no God-given right to watch out-of-market games. Almost everyone has access to football every Sunday, even if it's OTA from your FOX, CBS and NBC affiliate. If you "need" more than that, pay the piper for ESPN, NFL net and, for the hardcore, ST.


----------



## ke3ju (Aug 18, 2006)

davemayo said:


> Some people think that D* would crash and burn if it lost ST. I'm not so sure about that. What do others think?


It's only reason I signed up for D*, and the only reason I still have it.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> You're right - the NAB is no one's friend. It is the political arm of the broadcasters. It's the reason the rules are always stacked in favor of the broadcasters.


Yeah...they only give away all of their programming for free OTA.

Most of the citizens of the USA can now get free digital TV if they only would erect a capable antenna. But most choose the easy way out, deciding to pay for the delivery of free television via cable or satellite. Of course, there are exceptions for those that can't get an OTA signal. That is still the minority of Americans, however.

The rules are different for OTA stations and "cable only" broadcasters.

OTA must have x hours of educational/informational programming. Cablecasters do not.

OTA must abide by "decency standards". Cablecasters do not.

OTA must install emergency alert system equipment to relay government messages. Cablecasters do not.

OTA doesn't charge viewers to watch the programming. Most cablecasters charge the cable/sat provider either a flat fee or per-subscriber fee. That gets passed on to us.

Joe Viewer has it pretty good these days. There's still a lot out there that costs nothing, after you put in a DTV and an antenna. Now, it's even in HD sometimes!


----------



## kaysersoze (Feb 28, 2006)

jwd45244 said:


> Please show me where in the Constitution, a U.S. senator has the right to get in the middle of a contract negotiation between two businesses?


It is right next to the section that states he has the right to a wide stance.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Well, this is a capitalist country and thus those with money control things. Heck, it's that way anywhere.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not limitless on money. But I "sacrifice" for my Sunday Ticket fix. One less Pizza and 2 less Big Mac meals a month is all it takes to pay for Sunday Ticket. And I eat better to boot.


It's becoming less expensive to eat a Big Mac or dollar menu item as opposed the high cost at the grocery stores lately. !rolling


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

So, Let see where we are on this:


The NFL owns the rights to the games.
The NFL and DirecTV entered in to a contract that lets DirecTV have exclusive distribution for out of market games. At the time of the contract others had a chance to bid on it but either did not or did not meet or reach DTV's bid
Some people here don't like that fact that they have to pay to see out of market games.
Those same people appear to want the government to do something for them so they don't have to pay (or pay much less).

The government has no standing in this matter. Regardless of how unfair this might seem unless someone can convince the Justice Department to go after the NFL and DirecTV on Sherman Act violations, nothing will change.

The mere fact that the the NFL is a monopoly is not enough. Read the Sherman act, They have to have used that monopoly in an illegal way (they haven't). No amount of posturing by U.S. Senators can change this.

The NFL owns the rights and they have exercised those rights as they saw fit.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

jwd45244 said:


> So, Let see where we are on this:
> 
> 
> The NFL owns the rights to the games.
> ...


Yes and No... sort of.

You are correct that the mere act of being a monopoly is not illegal, and there has to be some violation of the Sherman Act.

However, the Sherman Act is so vague that if the courts decide you sneezed in the wrong manner and determine it to be an "unfair method of competition", then they can nail you.

In this case, though, you'd have a hard time proving that the exclusive contract was an unfair method of competition. After all - the NFL is competing with no other footbal league. And DirecTV is in direct competition with cable companies and Dish Network, and they're surviving just fine without NFL-ST, so you'd be hard pressed to prove a Sherman Act Violation. And, beyond that, DirecTV would argue that the exclusive contract has a 'legitimate business justification', which is one of the criteria used to determine whether some act is unfair or unreasonable... Obviously, DirecTV is out to make money, and if they can secure an exclusive contract, then that's good for business, and it doesn't prohibit any of their competitors from staying in business.... All in all, very hard to do anything with regards to anti trust violations in this particular scenario.

Not impossible because of the vagueness of the Sherman Act, but I don't think you'll find an attorney or court around who'd want to attempt this.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> Please show me where in the Constitution, a U.S. senator has the right to get in the middle of a contract negotiation between two businesses?


It's the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. For that matter, Congress has the right to regulate just about _anything_, unless it is something that is _prohibited _by the Constitution, like free speech rights.

The public airwaves are controlled by the FCC under federal laws passed by Congress. Same for the spectrum used by satellite TV. Where did you get the idea that Congress doesn't have the authority to intervene in contracts between satellite companies and content providers?


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

jwd45244 said:


> Please show me where in the Constitution, a U.S. senator has the right to get in the middle of a contract negotiation between two businesses?


To "legislate and regulate" is Congress's job... When you let private companies have more power than that of the elected state, you have a system of government called Fascism. A Conservatives wet dream....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> The government has no standing in this matter. Regardless of how unfair this might seem unless someone can convince the Justice Department to go after the NFL and DirecTV on Sherman Act violations, nothing will change.


Simply not true. Read my last post. The federal government does have the legal authority to regulate this area as it sees fit. An example would be the federal law passed in the 1970s that outlawed blackouts of sold-out NFL games. That law overrode contracts between the NFL and the TV networks. Another example is the 1996 telecom act, which empowered the FCC to override homeowners' association covenants that prohibited installation of satellite dishes.

Whether you agree with it or not, there is nothing to prevent Congress from regulating how programming is sold to satellite and cable companies, and that includes whether the NFL can sell exclusive rights to its games.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> It's the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. For that matter, Congress has the right to regulate just about _anything_, unless it is something that is _prohibited _by the Constitution, like free speech rights.
> 
> The public airwaves are controlled by the FCC under federal laws passed by Congress. Same for the spectrum used by satellite TV. Where did you get the idea that Congress doesn't have the authority to intervene in contracts between satellite companies and content providers?


You are correct, Congress does. An individual U.S. Senator does not. Someone brought up the fact that John Kerry inserted himself in what was a legal contract regarding MLB. Senator Kerry used more than just his "bully pulpit" in this matter but nowhere in the Constitution does it given any individual senator the right to interfere is what is otherwise a legal transaction.

The NFL - DTV contract does not fall under FCC jurisdiction at all (although maybe the FCC would like it to). The FTC, possibly and maybe the Justice Department if it is a violation of the Sherman Act. Read what I said. the government has no standing *unless *someone can can convince Justice that this deal is a violation of the Sherman Act


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

dodge boy said:


> To "legislate and regulate" is Congress's job... When you let private companies have more power than that of the elected state, you have a system of government called Fascism. A Conservatives wet dream....
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism


I agree Congress does that have right but an individual U.S. Senator does not. I was referring to when John Kerry inserted himself into contract negotiations with MLB.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> I agree Congress does that have right but an individual U.S. Senator does not. I was referring to when John Kerry inserted himself into contract negotiations with MLB.


Heinz ketchup versus DirecTV :hurah:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jtn said:


> Heinz catchup versus DirecTV :hurah:


Actually, it's Heinz ketchup 

Now if it were a DIRECTV receiver vs. a bottle of Heinz ketchup .. Hmmm. I think the ketchup might win that one.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> I agree Congress does that have right but an individual U.S. Senator does not. I was referring to when John Kerry inserted himself into contract negotiations with MLB.


Is this a political problem with Kerry or are you saying in general that politicians shouldn't speak out on issues that they believe my affect their constituents?

This has been going on forever. Ed Mees as Attorney General threatened Southland Corp. (7-11) if they didn't stop selling Playboy (They stopped). Actually, Mees broke the law by putting his demand on official letterhead, but that's another issue.


----------



## mecohen (Dec 3, 2006)

No way. Should they offer it to cable networks, they can say good-bey to the billions FOX and CBS are paying them.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Actually, it's Heinz ketchup
> 
> Now if it were a DIRECTV receiver vs. a bottle of Heinz ketchup .. Hmmm. I think the ketchup might win that one.


Thanks for the correction Doug :lol:


----------



## srevis (Sep 20, 2007)

mecohen said:


> No way. Should they offer it to cable networks, they can say good-bey to the billions FOX and CBS are paying them.


Being a Huge and Loyal Boston fan living in MPlS I would rather them open it up where as you just purchase your teams subscription. I would love to be able to just watch all Boston/ New England Games and listen to the home team announcers. although I have had ST every year I would tend to suscribe to more of the others if it would work that way.

SD is what got me to sign up for Directv in 1994 and that's why they pay the big bucks


----------



## KurtV (Dec 21, 2006)

dodge boy said:


> To "legislate and regulate" is Congress's job... When you let private companies have more power than that of the elected state, you have a system of government called Fascism. A Conservatives wet dream....
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism


We have a loser.

Godwin's law proves itself yet again.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Is this a political problem with Kerry or are you saying in general that politicians shouldn't speak out on issues that they believe my affect their constituents?
> 
> This has been going on forever. Ed Mees as Attorney General threatened Southland Corp. (7-11) if they didn't stop selling Playboy (They stopped). Actually, Mees broke the law by putting his demand on official letterhead, but that's another issue.


Kerry did much more than speak out. Public figures can and should use their "bully pulpit" any way they see fit. I have a problem with any public figure overstepping their bounds. Kerry was wrong and in your example Ed Meese was wrong.

Back to the topic at hand, the NFL - DTV deal is legal unless someone can convince Justice or the FTC otherwise. If it is illegal then "Nail the Suckers!"

Have we beaten this enough already?


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

srevis said:


> Being a Huge and Loyal Boston fan living in MPlS I would rather them open it up where as you just purchase your teams subscription. I would love to be able to just watch all Boston/ New England Games and listen to the home team announcers. although I have had ST every year I would tend to suscribe to more of the others if it would work that way.
> 
> SD is what got me to sign up for Directv in 1994 and that's why they pay the big bucks


There is only 1 problem about Subscribing to one teams broadcasts. You Living in Minnesota whenever the Boston Red Sox or Patriots were playing @ The Minnesota Twins or Minnesota Vikings respectively, the Minnesota team wouldn't like you watching the Boston Telecast. They want you watching the Minnesota Call of the game.  As a Chicago Fan I wish I could only subscribe to the Cubs/White Sox/ and Chicago Bears NFL Games but we can't do that. It's a way for the league to get your money by using the line (You must watch the game from the home teams network from where you live)  Even though for NFL games both teams use either Fox or CBS on Sunday Afternoons. It Sucks. I know I know. But that's just the way it's been and it looks like it's gonna stay that way for a while.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

OK .. folks .. we are getting really close to political talk in this thread. Talking about the law is OK, but we must leave politics out of the discussion. This is a warning to everyone .. Thank You.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> OK .. folks .. we are getting really close to political talk in this thread. Talking about the law is OK, but we must leave politics out of the discussion. This is a warning to everyone .. Thank You.


I apologize, Doug. I just wasn't sure if JWD believed that any politician would have been wrong in doing what Kerry did or it was just an issue with Kerry himself. I should have just sent a PM.

He explained his viewpoint.
I won't continue that line of questioning


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

KurtV said:


> We have a loser.
> 
> Godwin's law proves itself yet again.


I compared nothing to Nazis............:nono: 
Loser this............ 
and on that note I am done in this thread.......


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

The NFL does not have a monopoly on professional football.

WFL, USFL, XFL...anyone can create a new football league, if they wish. If the product is good, it will last. If not...bye bye.

Plus, you can get 4 or 5 NFL games free OTA every week (CBS/FOX Sunday and NBC Sunday Night.)

Since there are usually 14 games, thanks to bye weeks, that's about 35% of the NFL games you can see gratis. That's pretty impressive.

If you get ESPN, that's an additional game, every week, without getting Sunday Ticket.

Plus, the playoffs and Super Bowl...all free.

If you think ST is getting too high, don't buy it. Then D* will either be forced to reduce the price and/or make lower bids to renew the NFL contract.

Then if the NFL thinks they can get more coin by allowing distribution of ST via multiple outlets, it will happen.

No need to get the government involved.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> The NFL - DTV contract does not fall under FCC jurisdiction at all (although maybe the FCC would like it to). The FTC, possibly and maybe the Justice Department if it is a violation of the Sherman Act. Read what I said. the government has no standing *unless *someone can can convince Justice that this deal is a violation of the Sherman Act


...or unless Congress passes legislation to regulate such contracts. That's what Kerry was threatening them with. Arlen Spector and other members have made similar threats. That's what Congress did in the '70s to stop the blackouts of sold-out games. First they tried to coerce them into voluntarily changing their policy, then they held hearings, and then they passed a law to outlaw the practice.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> The NFL does not have a monopoly on professional football.
> 
> WFL, USFL, XFL...anyone can create a new football league, if they wish. If the product is good, it will last. If not...bye bye.
> 
> ...


Actually, the NFL is a monopoly. The jury found them to be so in USFL v. NFL back in 1986.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Actually, the NFL is a monopoly. The jury found them to be so in USFL v. NFL back in 1986.


...and the damage award was $3.

Since 1986 there has been the XFL and the Arena Leagues. The XFL had a TV contract with NBC. A much diferent atmosphere than what the USFL faced.

Let's not forget that the CFL had US teams 1993-1995, too.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> ...and the damage award was $3.
> 
> Since 1986 there has been the XFL and the Arena Leagues. The XFL had a TV contract with NBC. A much diferent atmosphere than what the USFL faced.
> 
> Let's not forget that the CFL had US teams 1993-1995, too.


The damage award was based on how the monopoly affected the area that the USFL was claiming damages (TV contract if I recall).

The failure of the XFL and other professional football in the United States speaks more to evidence of a monopoly rather than against it.

The NFL learned a lot from the USFL experience when the XFL was launched. Publicly they were almost silent on the new league. But, that's off topic.

There really is no question that that the NFL is a monopoly. The fact that others are in the market doesn't mean a monopoly doesn't exist.

Now, whether that has an effect on the exclusive contract for Sunday Ticket with DirecTV is another question entirely. There's more of a chance of legal action should the NFL push more and more programming towards their own network.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

USFL, WFL, XFL, AFL, WPFL, it really doesn't matter. The NFL is and will forever be the only professional football league.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Ken S said:


> There's more of a chance of legal action should the NFL push more and more programming towards their own network.


Yes, definitely!

If they not only "make it", but own the entire production and distribution chain, then the "trust" tag more than applies, and the government will be forced to step in and break it up.


----------



## mnbulldog (Aug 25, 2006)

The exclusive contract is as much about the NFL as it is D*. The NFL loves exclusive contracts - Sprint, EA (only video game of NFL now), Sirius - you name it they do exclusive providers. The list goes on and on.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

It's a major sponsor, and while it may not be exclusive, Reebok. When I look for NFL (and NHL) clothing, all the good looking stuff is from RBK. I could careless what label is on the stuff I wear, but I've learned when I look for shirts and hats I look at the label first. It seems the NFL has given RBK the exclusive on things I'd actually like to be seen in public wearing.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Yes, definitely!
> 
> If they not only "make it", but own the entire production and distribution chain, then the "trust" tag more than applies, and the government will be forced to step in and break it up.


Based upon what? The only thing that makes sense at all would be Sherman Act. It is clear that some of you don't like the NFlL - DTV deal. I get it. I guess you think it is not fair. Maybe it is not, but it is legal.

Many point to past government intervention in the business of professional sports as if this is the same thing. It clearly is not. The government got involved when all we had were the 3 networks. Now we have hundreds. There are many more choices.

Please let's make sure that the government puts an end to all exclusive business contracts. It must be illegal for NBC to be the only channel for Wimbledon. Surely, we must have hearings and congressmen to stand up and threaten NBC. Wait let's not stop there. It surely must be illegal for only GM cars to have OnStar in them.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

jwd45244 said:


> Based upon what? The only thing that makes sense at all would be Sherman Act. It is clear that some of you don't like the NFlL - DTV deal. I get it. I guess you think it is not fair. Maybe it is not, but it is legal.


I have no issue with ST. I enjoy it...and plan to get it again next season. I'm a season ticket holder in a city I no longer live in, and want to watch "my team", and understand I need to pay to do so.

I was just agreeing that if the only way to watch an NFL game, is via NFL owned and operated PPV/subscription channels. In other words...no NBC..CBS...Fox...ESPN...only NFL channels, then the trust tag could easily apply.

I'm not saying that would happen. That's very extreme. I was agreeing that there is a point where a line is clearly crossed.

I did not say that has, nor will, happen soon.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

mnbulldog said:


> The exclusive contract is as much about the NFL as it is D*. The NFL loves exclusive contracts - Sprint, EA (only video game of NFL now), Sirius - you name it they do exclusive providers. The list goes on and on.


I wonder if the NFL will still be in favor of exclusivity when the current D* contract is up with the ST


----------



## mightythor88 (Sep 22, 2007)

If Directv loses Sunday Ticket then they most definitely would lose me as a subscriber. It was what led me to directv in the 1st place back in 2000, as a West Coast Steeler fan it is the best option. I used to go to sports bars and drop $40-$50 on beers and food ($50x16weeks = $800) so anything under $500 for the subscription and I will pay it.

ST keeps me from looking into other providers. I am not happy w. the forced retirement of my HDTivo and would go back to cable just to have tivo - but I dont because of Sunday Ticket. 

Most of the new HD content is of limited interest to me , but seeing the Steelers every sunday from the comfort of my couch is something I place a high commodity on. 

Reading these posts it surprises me that so few people are with Directv purely for the Sunday Ticket - all of my friends who also have directv would say ST was at least 80%+ of the reason they have it.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

ST was the main reason I decided to go with DirecTV back in 1996, but having come from cable, Sunday Ticket or not, DirecTV has done nothing over the last dozen or so years t lose my business. I definitely feel the grass is greener here and have no desire to go anywhere else. And I actually cancelled ST this year and am content to stay right where I'm at.


----------



## lifelong (Sep 16, 2007)

Depending on how this NFL Network vs. cable spat plays out, the NFL may be "forced" to open up Sunday Ticket in order to get broader carriage of their channel on cable networks. Their deal with Comcast reportedly ends before the 2009 season. I can imagine Comcast saying "give us access to Sunday Ticket after 2010 and your network will be on basic cable, otherwise you'll remain on the sports tier that nobody subscribes to." That would have to be a tempting deal for the NFL. Right now the NFL just wants Comcast and other cable companies to simply dump a truckload of money into the NFL's lap (reportedly 70 cents per BASIC cable subscriber) in return for what amounts to little more than 8 televised games per year. I would imagine that cable companies would want something, like at least Sunday Ticket, in return for all of that cash.


----------



## spoonman (Feb 21, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> A BILLION dollar contract would be REALLY bad news for those of us that subscribe to ST. Since the number of ST subs is inherently limited by the number of D* subs, that much of an increase in the fee from D* to the NFL would yield a sustantial increase in the cost to the consumer. That increase, would, in turn, reduce the subscriber set further, pushing the cost up again.......vicious circle. There is noy way that D* can pay that and have ST continue for very long. That, I feel, would be the beginning of the end of NFL ST.


If they lowered the price they would have more people signing up also...Say it was $150 a season. It would be easy for me to say yes to getting it. But at the current price I just can't see me watching that much football


----------



## dshu82 (Jul 6, 2007)

I am with JLuc and mightthor. Reason I got D * back in the day, and still have it. Had Steeler season tix when I was living in Cleveland and still kept to watch the away games. Now living in FL, I am on my couch watching 16 weekends per year.


----------



## m_jraj (Oct 11, 2006)

dshu82 said:


> I am with JLuc and mightthor. Reason I got D * back in the day, and still have it. Had Steeler season tix when I was living in Cleveland and still kept to watch the away games. Now living in FL, I am on my couch watching 16 weekends per year.


ST drew me to Directv initially. But if ST ever went to other carriers too, I would stay with DTV based on excellent customer service and at least keeping up with the Jones's innovation and offerings wise.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

spoonman said:


> If they lowered the price they would have more people signing up also...Say it was $150 a season. It would be easy for me to say yes to getting it. But at the current price I just can't see me watching that much football


Plus another 100 for HD.

It was the reason that I stayed with D* last year when I had my option but I find it is getting very expensive for the few games that actually get watched on it. Every year it seems that more and more games are done outside of Sunday afternoon. So the price per potential game let alone actual game I watch get higher. The 100 additional for HD may really end up as the last straw for me. 
If no ST then I'll probably go with the best deal when my commmitment is up.


----------



## shendley (Nov 28, 2005)

Ditto to that. Got directv originally to watch my Steelers from the comfort of my own living room way down here in Birmingham, Alabama. In fact, I initially got it for a house where I couldn't receive the signal. I rigged up a place to anchor a dish on the top of my van and parked it in front of my neighbor's house every Sunday! Got pretty good at unrolling the coax and parallel parking the van (which was the key to a good dish alignment from the van). But after having it for a while in a house where I could install a permanent dish (yes, the joke in my house is that we moved to a completely new house so I could get directv on a daily basis!), I really liked the PQ and the service much better than cable. I'll never go back to Cable.



m_jraj said:


> ST drew me to Directv initially. But if ST ever went to other carriers too, I would stay with DTV based on excellent customer service and at least keeping up with the Jones's innovation and offerings wise.


----------

