# Senate Panel Calls Hearing on DirecTV's Sunday Ticket Package



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

*Senate Panel Calls Hearing on DirecTV's Sunday Ticket Package*



> Concerned that the NFL's exclusive Sunday Ticket package with DirecTV may be disenfranchising cable subscribers, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a last-minute hearing for Tuesday to talk about the package's antitrust implications.


Read the rest of the story at: *TVWeek*

_Note:_Thanks to a poster at SatelliteGuys for linking the article


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Link, Earl?? Also shouldnt they be calling the NFL on the carpet and not D*??


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

DCSholtis said:


> Link, Earl?? Also shouldnt they be calling the NFL on the carpet and not D*??


Here's a link http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11050. Beside D*, their calling the NFL and Time Warner to the hearing.s YEA, maybe D* will loose it's grip and open some options for folks tired of must using D* for NFL-ST.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

DCSholtis said:


> Link, Earl?? Also shouldnt they be calling the NFL on the carpet and not D*??


I am having a bad day with that...


----------



## dervari (Dec 1, 2005)

The government needs to keep their nose out of business. If DTV has an expensive exclusive deal with ST, more power to them. 

Maybe the govt should force MLB to allow Sirius to carry MLB Home Plate, or force NASCAR to be carried on XM next year.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

dervari said:


> The government needs to keep their nose out of business. If DTV has an expensive exclusive deal with ST, more power to them.
> 
> Maybe the govt should force MLB to allow Sirius to carry MLB Home Plate, or force NASCAR to be carried on XM next year.


I love the lame-duck session.

Or Stern on XM... or VOOM-HD 
Or allow other networks to cover the NCAA tourney...

3.5 Billion Is what DirecTv paid for the exclusive rights.


----------



## cybrsurfer (Sep 17, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> *Senate Panel Calls Hearing on DirecTV's Sunday Ticket Package*
> 
> Read the rest of the story at: *TVWeek*
> 
> _Note:_Thanks to a poster at SatelliteGuys for linking the article


I feel that the Senate has a good chance of forcing all carriers to be allowed to have NFL programming. Sunday ticket should not be restricted to just DirecTV. The NFL could make much more than 3.5 Billion if they opened up the market to Dish network and Cable TV companies including Verizon FiOS.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

NFL Network and all locally broadcast games are available to all cable and satellite providers (or very nearly all - if they want it).

Why would D*'s exclusive contract with the NFL to carry ALL available games be any different than (as mentioned above) MLB on XM, VOOM channels on E* or (thank heavens!) Stern being exclusive to Sirius (I am an XM subscriber )?

I don't see anything wrong with it myself. People are not being deprived of seeing their local teams play (blackouts tied to sell-outs not withstanding). Besides, if it was so bad for everybody, the NFL wouldn't be doing it, right?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Congress has such great success forcing Cable-Companies to comply with Cable-Cards.... release their locks on exclusive contracts with local RSN's and other channels (such as Comcast Sports Net in the Philly area, and CLTV in Chicago).

I think it is just a Senator trying to get one last flash into the frying pan.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> *Senate Panel Calls Hearing on DirecTV's Sunday Ticket Package*
> 
> Read the rest of the story at: *TVWeek*
> 
> _Note:_Thanks to a poster at SatelliteGuys for linking the article


Sigh.


----------



## cybrsurfer (Sep 17, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Congress has such great success forcing Cable-Companies to comply with Cable-Cards.... release their locks on exclusive contracts with local RSN's and other channels (such as Comcast Sports Net in the Philly area, and CLTV in Chicago).
> 
> I think it is just a Senator trying to get one last flash into the frying pan.


I agree... Competition is best right? The more availability drives down cost.


----------



## bigpuma (Feb 15, 2004)

cybrsurfer said:


> The NFL could make much more than 3.5 Billion if they opened up the market to Dish network and Cable TV companies including Verizon FiOS.


Obviously the NFL disagrees with you. If they thought they could make more money openning up NFLST they would have done it. The NFL also has a pretty good track record of extracting the most possible dollars out of TV contracts.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

bigpuma said:


> Obviously the NFL disagrees with you. If they thought they could make more money openning up NFLST they would have done it. The NFL also has a pretty good track record of extracting the most possible dollars out of TV contracts.


Pretty good? Yeah, I'd say


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

I think the NFL has every right to negotiate with a single provider for the rights to ST!
The NFL has done a good job of slicing up the pie among networks! 
DBS is the best source to distribute ST, be it either D* or E* to the entire country!

Congress should be working on a country wide video franchise for AT&T and VERIZON instead of trying to protect cable companies!


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

iceman2a said:


> I think the NFL has every right to negotiate with a single provider for the rights to ST!
> The NFL has done a good job of slicing up the pie among networks!
> DBS is the best source to distribute ST, be it either D* or E* to the entire country!
> 
> Congress should be working on a country wide video franchise for AT&T and VERIZON instead of trying to protect cable companies!


Generally agree. I'd prefer that Congress get out of the pay TV regulation business entirely, myself, but I don't expect to be seeing flying pigs anytime soon or ice crystals forming in hell.


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

cybrsurfer said:


> I feel that the Senate has a good chance of forcing all carriers to be allowed to have NFL programming. Sunday ticket should not be restricted to just DirecTV. * The NFL could make much more than 3.5 Billion if they opened up the market to Dish network and Cable TV companies including Verizon FiOS*.


*NO, they could not!* D* over pays for the rights to be "exclusive", if it was avlbl to all providers the value to each would be reduced!

And why shouldn't it be restricted to D*, they negotiated with the NFL for that "exclusive" rights! It's the NFL's product,they can distribute it as they see fit!
As long as there were no kick backs or bribes durring the process, then it's all fair!!!


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 1, 2005)

I would rather the senate force direct tv and dishnetwork to offer some sort of cable card in a few years. That way I can choose my dvr instead of using the crap both have right now.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

The Senate need to do something about the SuperFan package, being I subscribe to ST and the HD package why do I need to pay extra $ to watch the games in HD? I don't need the mix and the redzone channels.


----------



## audispartan (Sep 26, 2006)

It's quite simple, actually: 
Lame duck session + Senator from Penn + Comcast based in Philly = Hearing.    

And I'm a Republican...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

kevinwmsn said:


> The Senate need to do something about the SuperFan package, being I subscribe to ST and the HD package why do I need to pay extra $ to watch the games in HD? I don't need the mix and the redzone channels.


Because that is what DirecTV wanted to charge for it.
Their service, their bill. It does cost them more to broadcast the Superfan in HD... (not even going into the shutdown of other channels in order to provide enough bandwith).

Why should we have to pay for ANY channel?


----------



## bpayne (Oct 25, 2004)

It's quite simple- somebody that is about to be kicked out of office is holding these meetings to fulfill their end of the bargain- no, wait- they polled just like everybody else and probably gave equally to both parties to hedge their bets so that can't be it.

It's political posturing- plain and simple. 
On the surface, this would appear to be a way for [a] Cable co. to stand in front the press in hearings without spending any more political capital to send something in front of comittee that would die.

But more importantly: they get their quotes "on the record", provide a way to make "a certain Republican-leaning DBS company" look anti-competition (read: anti-consumer) in an environment that is about to get a whole lot 'bluer' and to deploy their sails along with the "changing political winds".

It would be an overstatement to call it anything less an attempt to "re-market" themselves.


----------



## grate88 (Sep 14, 2006)

Spector - Isn't he the magic bullet guy?


----------



## BlueSnake (Oct 6, 2006)

I suppose it's not fair that NBC now gets the best game available on Sunday Nights for the rest of the year? Or that the AFC is covered by CBS and the NFC is covered by FOX. But guess what, that's what the NFL negotiated, same as Sunday Ticket.

Maybe the World Series and the Super Bowl should be given to all Networks and not be awarded to the highest bidder|? How about the Olympics as well, why should anyone make money on any of this at the expense of the consumer? Because that's the American way of business and I don't think it's about to change now.

When D*s contract with the NFL is up, I'm sure the highest bidder will end up with the rights to Sunday Ticket, whether that is D* or someone else and everyone will have to live with that as well. So what else is new.:sure:


----------



## tommyb (Aug 18, 2006)

Some of it comes down to the fact that D* is available to everybody, while other providers like Comcast or Mediacom or whoever are only available to their market areas. If Comcast had ST I would be left out in the dark because I have Mediacom as a cable provider in my area. I am sure the NFL knows that there would be more subscribers from D* becasue there coverage are is larger. I also think that some of the argument about everybody being able to carry ST comes from the fact that all they do is re-broadcast feeds from CBS and NBC, which all of the cable providers carry. It is not like the olympics or the super bowl or the world series where one network wins the bidding and carries the whole event. I hope that I made what I am trying to say clear and you understand what I mean.


----------



## Twosted (Sep 18, 2006)

cybrsurfer said:


> I feel that the Senate has a good chance of forcing all carriers to be allowed to have NFL programming. Sunday ticket should not be restricted to just DirecTV. The NFL could make much more than 3.5 Billion if they opened up the market to Dish network and Cable TV companies including Verizon FiOS.


What's next then? What about EA's exclusive liscense to make NFL video games? What about 2K Sport's exclusive liscense to make MLB video games? If you want more football games then choose D*. If not choose another provider. It's not like they have exclusive rights to the local network games. I can watch my team anytime I want on my local network. But I am also a fan of exciting football. So I want the option to be able to watch another game other than the network broadcast game, especially when the network game is a yawn fest. And for that privilege I am willing to pay extra. So are many other people.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

I'd rather they take on health care, or investigate the bad intell (lies) about Iraq.....


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

bpayne said:


> It's quite simple- somebody that is about to be kicked out of office


is he out of the committee or losing his job altogether? I dont follow pols but thought if he was retiring etc, i would have heard it around here


----------



## rgraham541 (Aug 6, 2006)

How about making ESPN available to everyone for Monday Night Football!


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

It's not exclusive to D*, when I had C-band it was available on it too and was actually $80.00 cheaper than D*......


----------



## IndianaGary (Oct 25, 2006)

dodge boy said:


> It's not exclusive to D*, when I had C-band it was available on it too and was actually $80.00 cheaper than D*......


C-BAND lost the rights to carry it a few years ago. It is no longer available that way.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Just to throw in my 2 cents, for what they're worth, and to note a couple things. First off, Sen. Specter isn't an outgoing Senator - he was reelected 2 years ago. He is no longer going to be chairman of the judiciary committee (unless the republicans can strike the mother of all deals with Lieberman and he votes for the republican majority leader, in which case the republicans would still be in charge). Is this politically motivated? No question in my mind. One last hurrah for the sitting chairman, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the party that's pushing this is Comcast.

Also, not to get too picky, but a couple people referred to Specter as a lame duck. Lame duck doesn't apply to a Senator - nor does it apply to someone who is leaving a position - it really applies to the president. Specifically to a president who is in the last 2 years of his second term. Especially if he isn't in the same party that's controlling Congress during that time (given the nature of the 6-year itch - the party controlling the White House tends to lose big-time in the 6th year of a president's term - that actually happens quite often). As a result, since the president can't run for re-election, even members of his own party tend to ignore him - they have their own agendas, and many are eyeing the next presidential election. And technically speaking, this isn't happening during a lame duck session. The lame duck session really starts in January when the next Congress convenes. Specter is doing this now - while he's still chairman of the judiciary committee and while the republicans are still in charge - it'll be over by the time the next Congress, and hence the lame duck session, starts (can you tell I'm a political junkie).

Personally I'm opposed to this type of government intervention. I would like to see more deregulation in the telecom industry in general (if Specter REALLY wants to push something useful through, have him hold hearings on the terrestrial loop-hole, which he'll never do since it would hurt Comcast). At the end of the day, regulation just limits our choices, and costs us more money. Besides, I think (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) DirecTV has more than just exclusive rights with NFL games - I believe they also carry those games for the NFL -- they're the broadcaster getting the games around the country. I think the NFL makes out on this as well - and I'm not so sure that they would like to see that deal go away either. And really, what business does Congress have with something like this? DirecTV strikes up a deal with the NFL, and Congress feels they have the right to break that up? I have a real problem with that kind of intervention.

And for the record (someone asked this) - yes, Specter is the guy who came up with the magic single-bullet theory. In any event, I fully expect the government intervention to start getting a whole lot worse - Leahy should make things really ugly for a while (just like Specter wanting one last hurrah, Leahy is going to want to 'set the agenda' so I fully expect him to be aggressive, at least for the first 6 months or so).


----------



## ralphfurley (Jun 12, 2004)

Arlen Specter--US Senator from Pennsylvania

Comcast--home base Pennsylvania

Specter loves a headline; this is going nowhere. Taking on the the NFL is a losing proposition.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Listen to the WebCast..

http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscope/2006/11/live_nfl_direct.html

It is going right now (as of 8:45am CST)


----------



## cookpr (Aug 24, 2006)

Sunday Ticket (when its due for its next negotiation) will either stay with D*, go to E* or be open to all providers. Comcast/FIOS/ATT will never have exclusive rights as they simply only cover portions of the country.

The only way it goes to cable is if its just that, all cable providers and not just Comcast.


----------



## mikhu (Oct 10, 2006)

The bottom line is Congress should be worrying about things that they are supposed to worry about. Things like the deficit, taxes, and national defense. They should keep their noses out of private business. Everyone loses when Congress gets involved.


----------



## ClubSteeler (Sep 27, 2005)

This is very good news indeed for football fans.

I would love to be able to stop putting my dish up every Sunday, and be able to watch the games through cable.

In reality though, I doubt D* has anything to worry about. They can sign an exclusivity contract, but possibly, they could lose their ability to force Total Choice on you.

You see Howard Stern is on Sirius, but it's just a channel you get, not a special package. If I want Sirius, I get Stern, at no extra cost.

If I want to buy EA Sports Madden Football, I can, but I don't have to buy Tiger Woods Golf if I do not want to.

I don't see how DirecTV can force peoople who only want NFLST to pay for a year of unwanted Total Choice is beyond me. 

I know several people with kids who don't want their kids watching cable/sat tv, so all they have is an antenna. Now they are discriminated against because they can not get NFLST without paying for an entire year of unwanted total choice programming.

So my guess is Directv can and will be allowed exclusivity. However, they might lose their ability to shove thier overcompressed junk down the throats of people who do not want it because of this exclusivity.

But I know, all you sympathizers say, "Oh but poor little D*, they paid billions. I feel bad for them. We should send them extra money out of the kindness of our hearts."

Whatever...

What about poor little Joe Shmo that only wants NFLST, and to get it he has to pay:
$250 for NFLST
$100 if we wants it in HD.
$500 for the "privilege" of LEASING the box
$1700 for a 2 year forced commitment for HD equpiment

That's over $2500 to get to see a few games from his favorite team!!!

Nice...!! What a business. Better than printing money.

But I know... Poor D*... Good ole loving D* always getting picked on with lawsuits. Somebody up there loves us.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ClubSteeler said:


> What about poor little Joe Shmo that only wants NFLST, and to get it he has to pay:
> $250 for NFLST
> $100 if we wants it in HD.
> $500 for the "privilege" of LEASING the box
> ...


$500 to Lease What Box? the most expensive one the HR20 is $299 at full cost, if not less... or not free to new subscribers.

Anyway... I can see them having to allow it to be it's own subscription...

But as you pointed out... If DirecTV loses this exclusivity... then I can see most of the NFL's exclusivity contracts being attacked. The Video game ones are a FANTASTIC example.

When they signed the contracts with EA, the effective killed the #1 competitor game ... the "2k" series... EA then when and did it with the NCAA and others... Which has resulted in me not purchasing any new Football game this year, as I simply can't stand the EA versions of the game.

Exclusivity for game titles for one console over another... how be it on a smaller scale, is the exact same thing... If you want to play HALO you have to get an XBOX... If you want the newest versions of Grand Turismo... PS

Listening to the CSpan right now, the Professor had the right angle I think....
Fix the law from 1961 I think it was.

BTW... do you think if this is opened up to the cable-co's... what price point do you think the NFL is going to put on it, so they can "guarantee" a certain level of financial income... with the current setup, they know exactly how much they are going to get.

If it has to go to a subscriber/subscriber basis in the market, they don't have a guaranteed number, so you can almost bet they are going to have to charge more... Plus then the NFL is going to have to do more of the promotion for the "Sunday Ticket", instead of leaving it up to DirecTV...

It's a slippery slope...

I think ultimately, that it should change that you can subscribe JUST to the extended packages, and not require any other programming package. You can bet that if the Cable-Co's get it, they are require you get the Digital Package, and hence rent their box, or get one of the Cable-Card solutions.


----------



## ClubSteeler (Sep 27, 2005)

Well, as I am a grandfathered NFLST stand-alone subscriber, I am not a new customer. Last time I checked prices for HD equipment (about 6 months ago), it was $500, as high as over $700 for the equipment to be LEASED not owned.

I'm not sure what the cost is today.

And I would never accept a "new subscriber" deal, because that would lock me into a committment. So even if they would grant me "new subscriber" status, I wouldn't take it.

At any rate, there is exclusivity all over the world.

Heck the government itself, if they are happy with a certain defense contracter, will agree to buy all of a certain from that sole source.

I think the real issue will boil down to.. Who can get it? Who can not get it? Why can this segment of the population not get it for it's advertised price? and How can we open it up to everyone?

I don't think the answer is necessarily: "Give it to cable."

The answer might simply be: "Offer it standalone.. again..."
or maybe even: "Sell it to cable subscribers for $350, and the cable company then owes D* $250 of that money for each subscriber." I don't know the answer. But exclusivity can not be taken away if it is allowed everywhere else.


----------



## SBacklin (Sep 14, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Congress has such great success forcing Cable-Companies to comply with Cable-Cards.... release their locks on exclusive contracts with local RSN's and other channels (such as Comcast Sports Net in the Philly area, and CLTV in Chicago).
> 
> I think it is just a Senator trying to get one last flash into the frying pan.


I could be wrong but, don't you mean 'fish' and not flash Earl?


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Isn't D* a business? Isn't this a capitalistic oriented society. Don't businesses operating a capitalistic oriented society jockey for position for a competitive advantage to win maximum market share?

--- CHAS


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

I would hope a DirecTV executive, when asked the question of exclusivity and the NFL deal, would simply answer in the same way Congress frames most things:

The NFL, as its own entity, has come to an exclusive agreement with DirecTV to provide the Sunday Ticket programming package. Contrast that to the Philadelphia sports market, where one entity owns two of the three teams (in de-facto monopoly leagues), owns the cable company (another local monopoly) and owns the regional sports channel, and then does not allow a competitor to sell that regional sports channel.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

By the way, if there is any beef, it should definitely be with the NFL. It is after all a monopoly.


----------



## wakajawaka (Sep 27, 2006)

SBacklin said:


> I could be wrong but, don't you mean 'fish' and not flash Earl?


The actual metaphor is Flash In The Pan, but adding frying doesn't change the meaning.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

jpl said:


> Lame duck doesn't apply to a Senator - nor does it apply to someone who is leaving a position


Lame duck applies to anyone who is serving in an elected position after an election for that position has occured where that person was not re-elected.

Carl


----------



## tommyb (Aug 18, 2006)

carl6 said:


> Lame duck applies to anyone who is serving in an elected position after an election for that position has occured where that person was not re-elected.
> 
> Carl


I would have to agree with you.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

The Lame Duck comments came into play, referring to the current "session".
Being that there is about 6 weeks, until there is the change in the leadership of Congress.

Doesn't really matter... the Hearing was called.
When was it actually called? As I found it surprising that all parties where there this morning....


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

ClubSteeler said:


> Well, as I am a grandfathered NFLST stand-alone subscriber, I am not a new customer. Last time I checked prices for HD equipment (about 6 months ago), it was $500, as high as over $700 for the equipment to be LEASED not owned.
> 
> I'm not sure what the cost is today.


Try 99 bucks for an HD receiver. I think you are trying to push a DVR on the situation. You don't need that for HD reception. And HD DVRs start at 299 (and for new customers, you get them FREE; my sister just got a deal for 4 receivers including 1 HD DVR for FREE...oh and the commitment included cheaper programming than regular price for the duration fo the commitment).


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

carl6 said:


> Lame duck applies to anyone who is serving in an elected position after an election for that position has occured where that person was not re-elected.
> 
> Carl


I have to disagree. Generally when someone talks about a "lame duck" they're talking about the president. And it doesn't refer to someone leaving an existing position. For example, President Bush is seen as a lame duck, but he's still president. Also Senator Specter isn't leaving Congress. He still has 4 years to go. He didn't lose the election. True he won't be committee chairman anymore. But since this is way off topic, I'll stop here... 

Although, if you want to say that Specter is a lame duck committee chairman... I'll concede to that. In January he won't be chairman anymore, so anything he does between now and then will, I guess, be considered to be due to a "lame duck" session of the judiciary committee...


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

... either way, this is a stupid thing to do. I really don't see where Congress gets the authority to do something like this. Are DirecTV and the NFL doing anything illegal? Not that I can tell. If there are allegations of illegality, fine, THEN the judiciary committee can get involved... or if they are doing stuff that is "technically" legal but is coming close to crossing the line... again, fine. But here you have two private legal entities engaging in a legal, and certainly not border-line legal - totally legal, activity... Why exactly should Congress butt in here?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jpl said:


> ... either way, this is a stupid thing to do. I really don't see where Congress gets the authority to do something like this. Are DirecTV and the NFL doing anything illegal? Not that I can tell. If there are allegations of illegality, fine, THEN the judiciary committee can get involved... or if they are doing stuff that is "technically" legal but is coming close to crossing the line... again, fine. But here you have two private legal entities engaging in a legal, and certainly not border-line legal - totally legal, activity... Why exactly should Congress butt in here?


But I think the basis of the hearing is to identify if the are in fact doing something illegal. Hence why I think the professor brought up the reference to the 1961 law


----------



## cookpr (Aug 24, 2006)

ClubSteeler said:


> In reality though, I doubt D* has anything to worry about. They can sign an exclusivity contract, but possibly, they could lose their ability to force Total Choice on you.
> 
> You see Howard Stern is on Sirius, but it's just a channel you get, not a special package. If I want Sirius, I get Stern, at no extra cost.
> 
> ...


I think Club Steeler hit it on the head...this is likely about D* forcing you to subscribe to Total Choice and all the committments they comamnd of you in order to get Sunday Ticket. I can't imagine its about D* have exclusive rights....but I have been known to be wrong.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

It seems very ironic for our government to hold hearings about an exclusive agreement between the NFL and DTV as opposed to holding hearings about the exclusive agreement between the Defence Department and Haliburton. That's the agreement I'd like to see reviewed.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But I think the basis of the hearing is to identify if the are in fact doing something illegal. Hence why I think the professor brought up the reference to the 1961 law


I really don't want to keep going back and forth, because it's getting off-topic, but I do want to reply. I'll ammend what I said earlier. If there are allegations of illegality, then why not go to court? Isn't THAT what the judiciary is for? Why would Congress get involved? The federal courts may fall under the perview of the Congress in general, and the judiciary committees in particular, but this, in my mind, isn't the role of the committee. They shouldn't be hearing individual court cases like this. They should be providing direction to the federal courts, but to investigate specific issues of illegality? That's what the courts are for. If the courts act in a bizarre way, then Congress certainly has the right to intervene (yes, the federal courts, with the exception of the Supreme Court, are creations of Congress, and therefore under their perview), as they did with the case of the pledge of allegience coming out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ONLY way this is justified, in my mind, is if Congress is looking to change regulation with regard to a particular industry. If they're looking to change the rules, as it were, for the industry with these types of arrangements in general, THEN I could see them doing something like this. But then, they shouldn't be targeting one particular arrangement (DirecTV with the NFL), they should be pulling in people from across the industry, to decide if changes in regulation are called for.

This smacks of political grand-standing, designed to "play to the audience" - aka Specter trying to please Comcast. That's what I dislike about this. Going after an industry or company just because they're big and profitable. Whether they're actually hurting the consumer seems to be secondary - big, profitable companies (particularly one headed by a conservative activist like Murdoch) make mighty fine political targets. Just ask Wal-Mart.


----------



## viking1965 (Sep 26, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> It seems very ironic for our government to hold hearings about an exclusive agreement between the NFL and DTV as opposed to holding hearings about the exclusive agreement between the Defence Department and Haliburton. That's the agreement I'd like to see reviewed.


Glad I read yours before posting the exact same thought !!!!!


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Ladies and Gentlemen please welcome to the pulpit, BattleScott.

1) 'Competiton' is why the Sunday Ticket is on DTV. Direct TV has the best (the only, really, aside from Dish) vehicle for national distribution of the product. No single cable company has nationwide coverage and very few have the digital infastructure needed to provide the service outside metro areas. The government stepping in and saying they must provide to everyone is 'regulation' not 'de-regulation'.

2) DirecTV paid a premium for exclusive rights to distribute the NFL package how they see fit. If they want to force everyone to subscribe to all available services in order to get it, it is their right to do so (provided it doesn't violate the contract signed with the NFL). Since all NFL games are broadcast over free networks in their home markets, I would hardly consider this agreement a 'monopoly' of the product. 

3) Senator Spectre is a well known beneficiary of Comcast's pocketbook. He is making this effort solely to benefit those that have been lining his pockets for years. This behavior is known as being a politician.

4) A good rule of thumb: If you start a sentence with 'The Government should do..', you are going to be wrong 99.99999% of the time. If you would be OK with the goverment forcing the NFL to provide programming the way you wish, don't complain when the same government takes away programming you want because someone else doesn't think you should see it.

And that's all I have to say about that...


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> It seems very ironic for our government to hold hearings about an exclusive agreement between the NFL and DTV as opposed to holding hearings about the exclusive agreement between the Defence Department and Haliburton. That's the agreement I'd like to see reviewed.


Ok, now I'm gonna get WAY off topic. The relationship between the DOD and Halliburton isn't anything mysterious, nor nefarious (despite what many want to believe). It was a contract that was enacted during the Clinton (yes, the Clinton) administration. The contract is an omnibus contract that calls for one company to provide "nation-building" services to the government. Really the genesis for this was the war in Kosovo. We contracted out the rebuilding effort following that conflict. Due to the size and scope of such a rebuilding effort, the DOD had MANY requirements that needed to be met. The problem is that there are very few companies out there that can do the whole thing soup-to-nuts. Halliburton is one of the very few.

Basically the DOD had two choices when bidding the contract. Either they parcel up the contract and let lots of contractors bid on the individual pieces (which would have opened the playing field to lots of contractors) or they could have put it in one gigunda contract. The problem with option 1 is the cost. Bidding contracts is very expensive business for the government. If you have LOTS of contracts being bid, then you're spending LOTS of money just to get the contracts squared away, so they went, instead, with option 2 - single-source contracting. The good side of option 2 - it's cheaper. The bad side - it severely limits the companies that can bid for it, since there are very few companies that can meet all the requirements that the DOD had.

The contract that they were given didn't pertain to just one conflict - but like most government contracts of this nature - covered a span of time. So, no matter what came down the road, no matter who was in the White House, Halliburton would be the company to get the work, under the terms of the contract, come rain or shine. It predated the Iraq war, and even Cheney being tapped as Bush's VP candidate, by a long shot.

I'll end my part of this discussion here - it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand... but I felt compelled to respond. It'll be the last from me on this.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Bring it back to Sunday Ticket, and the hearings....

Not what other "agreements" are out there.
Even those there is naturally a politic piece to this topic, I am allowing it in the forum.

But if we start to spread it into other political discussions, I am going to have to close the thread.


----------



## viking1965 (Sep 26, 2006)

HIPAR said:


> Isn't D* a business? Isn't this a capitalistic oriented society. Don't businesses operating a capitalistic oriented society jockey for position for a competitive advantage to win maximum market share?
> 
> --- CHAS


Exactly...but in more detail:

The NFL creates "content" (games). They are free to sell that content to anyone they like, at any cost they like, subject to any restrictions / limitations (exclusivity)the two parties agree to.

The second party is then free to distibute the content at any price and under any conditions (must also buy Total Choice) they deem fit. This price is subject to market pressure (supply & demand). If too few people buy the package at a given price, the seller is forced to lower the price. Conversely, the seller could choose to raise the price if demand is high.

This is how our economy is designed to work.

The government, at any level, needs to keep their nose out of it.

As many before me in this thread have sated, they certainly have more important sh*t to worry about.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Bring it back to Sunday Ticket, and the hearings....
> 
> Not what other "agreements" are out there.
> Even those there is naturally a politic piece to this topic, I am allowing it in the forum.
> ...


Point well taken. I'll stop...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Couldn't a similar argument be made with the Chicago Blackhawks.

The only way to see a home game... is to attend the home game.
They have chosen the exclusive right to NOT broadcast the game... thus forcing anyone intrested in seeing a home Chicago Blackhawk game, to HAVE to pay the entrance fee...and all the other "costs" around going to a game.

Different arena, but the same "arguments" can be made.

It is "their" property... the NFL owns the rights to the broadcasts. That is how their OWNERS agreed to it in what ever contract they have with the "league". If the owners want it to change, they need to first change it with in their own league..... (Aka, take the broadcast right control away from the NFL as a whole, and give it to the teams... kinda like what MLB does)


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

jpl said:


> I have to disagree. Generally when someone talks about a "lame duck" they're talking about the president. And it doesn't refer to someone leaving an existing position. For example, President Bush is seen as a lame duck, but he's still president. Also Senator Specter isn't leaving Congress. He still has 4 years to go. He didn't lose the election. True he won't be committee chairman anymore. But since this is way off topic, I'll stop here...
> 
> Although, if you want to say that Specter is a lame duck committee chairman... I'll concede to that. In January he won't be chairman anymore, so anything he does between now and then will, I guess, be considered to be due to a "lame duck" session of the judiciary committee...


The press doesn't agree with you. The news had been calling the next 2 months of congress a "lame duck" session because that's what it is. The current party in power will no longer be in power in 2 months. That's what a lame duck sesson is.

Anyway, back to topic.

As always, our elected officials have nothing better to do then make their contributors happy by pulling this stuff. NFL can do what it wants with their product and can sell it however they want. The argument that they could "make more money" my allowing all providers to have ST really doesn't matter now does it? The NFL can choose to make as much or as little money as it so chooses. Knowing the NFL they choose to always make as much money as possible so they feel, at least for now, that a D* exclusive is the way to make the most money. It was clear in the last round of network negotiations that the networks (Fox and CBS) don't want cable anywhere near Sunday Ticket because they know that instantly erodes the worth of their games. Thus if cable did get Sunday Ticket the networks won't pay nearly as much for *their* exclusive rights to broadcast the games. In the end even if the NFL did get more money for Sunday Ticket by opening it up, they lose money after the network refuse to pay so much for a diluted product. Thus why ST remains on satellite where it's audience is more limited.

Everything in sports and entertainment is exclusive.
AFC games on CBS only.
NFC games on Fox only.
ST on DirecTV only.

Oh and I think congress better open up a hearing about NBC having the exclusive rights to Heroes. I mean their HD signal sucks in my area so I feel that I should be able to get it from one of the other networks that has a better HD signal. Waaaaaaaaaaaa. :crying:


----------



## jpeckinp (Nov 6, 2006)

Damn it I think the Gov't should go after McDonalds for the lock on their french fries.
Why can't I get McD's fries at White Castle or Taco Bell.


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> Everything in sports and entertainment is exclusive.
> AFC games on CBS only.
> NFC games on Fox only.
> ST on DirecTV only.


Sunday night games on NBC
Monday night games on ESPN
Tursday night games on NFL NETWORK

And they are all avialable to everyone via Sat or Cable (even though some providers choose not to carry NFL NET)

Comcast is *dirty and agressive* in fighting to protect it's monopoly!

It's no different then a recent local hearing here (in Boston) by the city council to ban SAT dishes! They can deny all they want, but I belive it was prompted by Comcast!!!


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

ClubSteeler said:


> In reality though, I doubt D* has anything to worry about. They can sign an exclusivity contract, but possibly, they could lose their ability to force Total Choice on you.
> 
> So my guess is Directv can and will be allowed exclusivity. However, they might lose their ability to shove thier overcompressed junk down the throats of people who do not want it because of this exclusivity.


If that is the case, you can expect the price of ST to jump. D* prices it based on the assumption that you have to be a customer with a minumum package. Take that package revenue away and D* has to make it up somewhere.

Yeah, I hope that goes through.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> If that is the case, you can expect the price of ST to jump. D* prices it based on the assumption that you have to be a customer with a minumum package. Take that package revenue away and D* has to make it up somewhere.
> 
> Yeah, I hope that goes through.


Same would be true if the NFL is required to spread it out...
Since they can't guaranteed on the flat rate (the 3.5 billion from DirecTV), They are going to ask for higher per subscriber rates, from each carrier willing to carry it.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

In the hearing, Specter also criticized NFL network's exclusivity for the few games they will carry http://www.tvpredictions.com/specter111406.htm.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

bobnielsen said:


> In the hearing, Specter also criticized NFL network's exclusivity for the few games they will carry http://www.tvpredictions.com/specter111406.htm.


Then let's start jumping on ABC for only airing LOST on ABC affiliates. What ta heck are these morons we elect into office really thinking? :nono2:


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Gee, you think if Specter really wanted to make a difference that the line about the NFL making less money so that all games are available should also apply to Comcast?


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

I like this quote:



> Specter, the committee's chairman, asked Time Warner COO Landel Hobbs if he believed the NFL had violated antitrust law. However, Hobbs said he thought the marketplace -- not the federal government -- should resolve the dispute.


Even the TW exec agrees the government should keep their nose out of it.

Of course he goes on to agree with Specter about Sunday Ticket. Sounds like Hobbs should be in congress himself with his flip flops.


----------



## mikhu (Oct 10, 2006)

Last I checked TWC doesn't even carry NFLN. The last thing they should be complaining about is someone else putting up the money to carry NFLST exclusively when they won't even carry the NFL's station.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Mike Huss said:


> Last I checked TWC doesn't even carry NFLN. The last thing they should be complaining about is someone else putting up the money to carry NFLST exclusively when they won't even carry the NFL's station.


IIRC, during the webcast...

TWC they where there to complain how NFL networks wants it to be in TWC's sports tier... where TWC wants to offer it as an ala-cart channel... or possible even only for "live games"


----------



## mikhu (Oct 10, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> IIRC, during the webcast...
> 
> TWC they where there to complain how NFL networks wants it to be in TWC's sports tier... where TWC wants to offer it as an ala-cart channel... or possible even only for "live games"


They are the reason I take the complaining about D* around here with a huge grain of salt. I had TWC's pathetic ridiculous overpriced service for about 10 years before I got D* in '96. Even then I kept their basic local service because D* didn't have locals at that time. That lasted for maybe a year, as that basic locals service went from $6/month to almost $15 for the same stuff I could get off an antenna. When it more than doubled I went out and bought an antenna. That is one horrible company.

Roadrunner sure does rock though, it's just too dang expensive.


----------



## chartman (Sep 14, 2004)

First off, no idea why Direct TV subscribers would have an issue with the Sunday Ticket being on Dish or Cable. If you like the service of Direct TV, you like it. Doesnt matter what anyone else has. Also if more companies split the bill of the package with the NFL, most likely the price to the consumer will go down and everyone should be happy with that. Finally, what the senator is arguing is that the Sunday Ticket deal viloates the Anti-Trust Exemption granted to the NFL in 1961 as that deal to not enforce an Anti-Trust suit against them hinged on them "Making their broadcasts available to anyone". With the Sunday Ticket being exclusive to Direct TV with no other providers being able to pay the same money to carry it as well it is in essence excluding carriers. Also the argument goes into the regional coverage of games being out of whack as well. In the end, if Direct TV is willing to pay 3.5 billion for it, and every other company is will ing to go 2.5 billion to carry it, then why not get 2.5 billion from Direct TV, Dish, Comcast, Adelphia, Time Warner, Verizon, ATT, and anyone else who wants to pay. The NFL gets a ton more money, every carrier gets to sell the package, as its cheaper to the carrier part of the savings should be passed to the customer meaning a cheaper package, and we all get the choice to buy the package with our given provider.


----------



## dwk78 (Sep 18, 2006)

Has anyone ever looked at the Official NFL Sunday Ticket website? Since I am new member, I cannot post links, but you can google nfl sunday ticket, and it is the first link that comes up.

Directv is exclusive to the US, but look at all the other providers outside the US. And, does anyone know how much NFLST costs from Bell Canada? Follow the link and you will find out. Or, if you really wanna know... $179, and I am assuming that is Canadian, and may include HD games? That doesn't quite seem fair to me. Just because I live in the US, I am locked into getting it form DirecTV, but if I lived elsewhere, I have choices? I am not sure if Congress needs to be getting involved, but it looks to me like if other providers offered the service, it would be cheaper.

That is just my opinion though,

Dennis


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

You make a good point...

But here is one reason I could think of...

What if "next" season, they do split it up... and any carrier can have it.
After the end of the season, DirecTV/Dish/Comcast/Ect... decide.. they didn't make enough money on the package... 

They they decided to charge more, or not carry it all the next season.
Then you are looking at changing carriers again... and what if there are service contracts involved? makes it more difficult to change carriers.

At least the way it is now... you know who has it... who is going to have it..
And DirecTV has a vested intrest in making it the best package that they can... Each year they add something else to it.


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

Meanwhile,

"NFL Network Gets Attention From Congress" 
http://www.statesman.com/sports/con..._Congress_NFL.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=1&cxcat=0 ( or if Free Subscription is needed in order to read it, some details are also here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=70106 )


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

chartman said:


> First off, no idea why Direct TV subscribers would have an issue with the Sunday Ticket being on Dish or Cable. If you like the service of Direct TV, you like it. Doesnt matter what anyone else has. Also if more companies split the bill of the package with the NFL, most likely the price to the consumer will go down and everyone should be happy with that. Finally, what the senator is arguing is that the Sunday Ticket deal viloates the Anti-Trust Exemption granted to the NFL in 1961 as that deal to not enforce an Anti-Trust suit against them hinged on them "Making their broadcasts available to anyone". With the Sunday Ticket being exclusive to Direct TV with no other providers being able to pay the same money to carry it as well it is in essence excluding carriers. Also the argument goes into the regional coverage of games being out of whack as well. In the end, if Direct TV is willing to pay 3.5 billion for it, and every other company is will ing to go 2.5 billion to carry it, then why not get 2.5 billion from Direct TV, Dish, Comcast, Adelphia, Time Warner, Verizon, ATT, and anyone else who wants to pay. The NFL gets a ton more money, every carrier gets to sell the package, as its cheaper to the carrier part of the savings should be passed to the customer meaning a cheaper package, and we all get the choice to buy the package with our given provider.


I don't see, nor do I think very many other people see, is how it violates any "anti-trust exemption"! As stated b4, most all games are avlbl OTA!

What this is, and it has been said before, is an attempt by *COMCRAP* to stop the bleeding of loosing subs, by using influence they purchased in the US Senate!

Yes, I'm bias against COMCRAP, they $uc%! This is no place for gov intervention!

If the next time the rights for NFL ST come up, the NFL sets a price, and agrees to let any carrier the meets that price to carry it, that's fine! If they stay with the highest bidder and E* out bids D* that's fine too!


----------



## dwk78 (Sep 18, 2006)

and that is a good point as well about having to potentially change subscribers, but if you figure others are charging far less then DTV is now, to me that sounds like DTV is getting as much as they possibly can from all of its ST subscribers. I am still even a little POed that I have to pay extra just to get the games in HD. That doesn't seem quite right either, and then they don't even have the bandwidth to offer all the HD games available!


----------



## cybrsurfer (Sep 17, 2006)

iceman2a said:


> I don't see, nor do I think very many other people see, is how it violates any "anti-trust exemption"! As stated b4, most all games are avlbl OTA!
> 
> What this is, and it has been said before, is an attempt by *COMCRAP* to stop the bleeding of loosing subs, by using influence they purchased in the US Senate!
> 
> ...


I agree with you except that as long as a carrier is willing to contribute something to the NFL, they should be allowed to carry it. It's better for the pocketbook of the NFL to allow all carriers to bid regardless of whether they all can pay the same. It's better for the consumer to have more competition. It has nothing to do with liking DirecTV over Dish or Comcast, it's about fairness.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

dwk78 said:


> and that is a good point as well about having to potentially change subscribers, but if you figure others are charging far less then DTV is now, to me that sounds like DTV is getting as much as they possibly can from all of its ST subscribers. I am still even a little POed that I have to pay extra just to get the games in HD. That doesn't seem quite right either, and then they don't even have the bandwidth to offer all the HD games available!


That is a different country, different "market", with different demands and willingness to pay. Sure we can look at Canada a little bit at the pricing, but there is no guarantee that it would work out the same where here...


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

cybrsurfer said:


> I agree with you except that as long as a carrier is willing to contribute something to the NFL, they should be allowed to carry it. It's better for the pocketbook of the NFL to allow all carriers to bid regardless of whether they all can pay the same. It's better for the consumer to have more competition. It has nothing to do with liking DirecTV over Dish or Comcast, it's about fairness.


Why did AFC games move from NBC to CBS and NFC games move from CBS to FOX?
Because FOX was the _highest bidder _and NBC was not willing to spend the kind of money needed to stay in the "game"! They eventualy figured out how much they blew that call!!

Do we realy need the federal goverment protecting networks or cable companies?

Enough already!

And don't think for one second that congress is protecting the consumer, D* only charges what the mkt will bare! If they start loosing subs the price will go down!
Why do you think they offered free HD DVR's for people that reup ST! That price point is coming into focus now!!!


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

cybrsurfer said:


> I agree with you except that as long as a carrier is willing to contribute something to the NFL, they should be allowed to carry it. It's better for the pocketbook of the NFL to allow all carriers to bid regardless of whether they all can pay the same. It's better for the consumer to have more competition. It has nothing to do with liking DirecTV over Dish or Comcast, it's about fairness.


DirecTV paid $3.5B for 'EXCLUSIVE' rights in the US. 
No provider would be willing to spend that amount if the rights were not exclusive. So the NFL would not be able to demand the same price by allowing multiple providers to carry the NFLST. By using an 'exclusive' carrier, the NFL only has to deal with a single provider and the provider can use the 'exclusive' rights to enhance their subscriber numbers, a win-win relationship.

Also, the NFLST is a susbcription-only enhancement of the NFL product. I don't know what the exact numbers are on any given Sunday for total NFL viewership, but I am certain that the overwhelming majority of viewers are watching the broadcasts of their regional teams on their local network affiliates at no additional charge.

And having different providers paying different amounts for the same broadcast rights? Not in this country commrade! :flag:


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

iceman2a said:


> Enough already!


Exactly!!!!


----------



## cybrsurfer (Sep 17, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> DirecTV paid $3.5B for 'EXCLUSIVE' rights in the US.
> No provider would be willing to spend that amount if the rights were not exclusive. So the NFL would not be able to demand the same price by allowing multiple providers to carry the NFLST. By using an 'exclusive' carrier, the NFL only has to deal with a single provider and the provider can use the 'exclusive' rights to enhance their subscriber numbers, a win-win relationship.
> 
> Also, the NFLST is a susbcription-only enhancement of the NFL product. I don't know what the exact numbers are on any given Sunday for total NFL viewership, but I am certain that the overwhelming majority of viewers are watching the broadcasts of their regional teams on their local network affiliates at no additional charge.
> ...


This would translate into better NFL for all.


----------



## thumperr (Feb 10, 2006)

cybrsurfer said:


> This would translate into better NFL for all.


I have to disagree. once the other carries had NFLST available, the value of the AFC and NFC packages would decrease. The major networks would have less incentive to bid for them, because the viewers could watch all the games on the NFLST, changing more channels and viewing less commercials.

As for the post about why a D* subscriber would not like to see other carries NFLST, 
As a D* subscriber I don't want other carries to have NFLST. The exclusivity of the package drives both home users and commercial users to D*, this keeps my costs down. D* gets high quality subscribers that buy lots of services and it has to be great for the marketing department.


----------



## cybrsurfer (Sep 17, 2006)

thumperr said:


> I have to disagree. once the other carries had NFLST available, the value of the AFC and NFC packages would decrease. The major networks would have less incentive to bid for them, because the viewers could watch all the games on the NFLST, changing more channels and viewing less commercials.
> 
> As for the post about why a D* subscriber would not like to see other carries NFLST,
> As a D* subscriber I don't want other carries to have NFLST. The exclusivity of the package drives both home users and commercial users to D*, this keeps my costs down. D* gets high quality subscribers that buy lots of services and it has to be great for the marketing department.


I respect your view, but I feel more carriers equals better for all.:sure:


----------



## bluedogok (Sep 9, 2006)

Mike Huss said:


> Last I checked TWC doesn't even carry NFLN. The last thing they should be complaining about is someone else putting up the money to carry NFLST exclusively when they won't even carry the NFL's station.


Yep, the local TWC system here doesn't have it.



chartman said:


> Finally, what the senator is arguing is that the Sunday Ticket deal viloates the Anti-Trust Exemption granted to the NFL in 1961 as that deal to not enforce an Anti-Trust suit against them hinged on them "Making their broadcasts available to anyone". With the Sunday Ticket being exclusive to Direct TV with no other providers being able to pay the same money to carry it as well it is in essence excluding carriers.


The current ST contract is not limiting what viewers see, the networks do that. I didn't have ST until this season and I watched games all day on Sunday, so broadcasts were "available to me from noon to 6:15 via OTA. Granted, it may not have been the games that I wanted to see but nowhere is it guaranteed that I get to see what games that I want on TV, I never thought getting to watch what games that I wanted to see was a "right" that the gov't should grant me. I am willing to pay extra and have a satellite dish on my roof for MY convenience, so if someone wants to see out of market games, than expect to pay up. I remember when something like ST did not exist and the only parts of games that you saw were the highlights on MNF.

This "hearing" is nothing more than an attempt to pay off political friends and is a sad and pathetic example of just how corrupt our gov't really is, on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

I hope this isn't a case of somebody in Congress getting mad because he can't get out of market games for "his team" on cable and doesn't want to subscribe to Dtv, but I bet this is the case.

There's nothing wrong with Dtv having ST exclusive. They have paid out the nose for it. The NFL doesn't make money losing TV deals either.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

bluedogok said:


> The current ST contract is not limiting what viewers see, the networks do that. I didn't have ST until this season and I watched games all day on Sunday, so broadcasts were "available to me from noon to 6:15 via OTA. Granted, it may not have been the games that I wanted to see but nowhere is it guaranteed that I get to see what games that I want on TV, I never thought getting to watch what games that I wanted to see was a "right" that the gov't should grant me. I am willing to pay extra and have a satellite dish on my roof for MY convenience, so if someone wants to see out of market games, than expect to pay up. I remember when something like ST did not exist and the only parts of games that you saw were the highlights on MNF.
> 
> This "hearing" is nothing more than an attempt to pay off political friends and is a sad and pathetic example of just how corrupt our gov't really is, on both sides of the aisle.


The technology is there for local affiliates to carry all NFL games. During March Madness our local CBS affiliate was carrying different games on their -1, -2 and -3 subchannels. -1 was the one for our market in HD and the -2 and -3 games were in SD. But as you state, DTV isn't blocking that. I'm not sure if the NFL or FOX and CBS are preventing locals from doing that for NFL games, if anyone is.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

cybrsurfer said:


> The NFL could get 10 billion easy from all 4 carriers combined!


Which was part of the subject line on one post.

So, let's have all four networks air the Super Bowl at the same time. I'm sure the NFL could gain tons more money if ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC were all showing the Super Bowl.

Then again, maybe none of the networks could charge $2.2 million for a 30-second spot anymore. If all four networks were showing the game, I'd be surprised if any of the networks received $500,000.

And if the networks were lucky enough to get all of one quarter of their revenue, then maybe the networks would ask the NFL for a rebate because they aren't making enough money because everyone else has the same product.

Oh, wait a minute. Maybe an exclusive is the way to go.

Now I'm back to reality.

And there is no way in hell the NFL makes $10 billion over seven years selling NFL Sunday Ticket to everyone.


----------



## bigpuma (Feb 15, 2004)

iceman2a said:


> Why did AFC games move from NBC to CBS and NFC games move from CBS to FOX?
> Because FOX was the _highest bidder _and NBC was not willing to spend the kind of money needed to stay in the "game"! They eventualy figured out how much they blew that call!!


Actually I would say NBC was the only network smart enough to walk away from the NFL when they did. They also got a much better deal this year than any other network including the option of cherry picking the best game of the week. Every other network uses the NFL as a loss leader hoping to promote other shows to make up the difference. NBC probably makes money because they almost always have a great match-up.


----------



## employee3 (Aug 15, 2006)

Does anyone wonder why there is a Canadian Sat gray market now? StarChoice and Bev both offer Sunday Ticket for $100 a season... *AND* you can do it month to month for $25.

That being said, I'm a DirecTv sub with Sunday ticket and Superfan for the HD... I also love the Red Zone channel, so there is value-added there.


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

bigpuma said:


> Actually I would say NBC was the only network smart enough to walk away from the NFL when they did. They also got a much better deal this year than any other network including the option of *cherry picking the best game of the week.* Every other network uses the NFL as a loss leader hoping to promote other shows to make up the difference. NBC probably makes money because they almost always have a great match-up.


They do not necessarily get the best game! FOX and CBS get to protect a certian number of games from being moved! After they lost the NFL, how many ind affiliates switched metworks? I know in a few mkts it happened!


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

Why not take football off the airwaves and charge $10.00 per game, per week? It would make more than the WWF becuase at the end of the seson, if your team's division was tight and say, all four teams were playing and none were playing each other that's, a real fan would order all 4, that's $40.00 that week alone, night games could be $20.00 per game (Sun. Mon. and Thurs.) and everyone would buy night games. They wouldn't need comercials anymore. Each team could get revenew based upon games viewed and we'd get better calibur games, I think, because no one will watch a 13-3 team.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I'm starting to rethink this. I originally thought that this was a case of Specter getting one last hurrah before stepping down as chairman. I'm not convinced that's the case anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if this continues into the next Congress. First off, Leahy ain't exactly shy about holding hearings like this. Second, members of Congress do "favors" for each other all the time. In 2001, the democrats attracted Jim Jeffords to jump ship by promising him something that was politically very valuable to him - the support of the dairy cartel that's been created, which is a boon to dairy farms in VT.

I can see Leahy doing the same thing for Specter. Specter isn't going away, and will be the ranking republican member of a very evenly divided judiciary committee. He can make life absolutely miserable for Leahy if he decided to. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Leahy does this as a favor to Specter, and Specter delivers to a major piece of his constituency. Not saying this would be tops of Leahy's agenda, but it wouldn't shock me to find it on the dockett come January. Just food for thought.


----------



## spidey (Sep 1, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> *Senate Panel Calls Hearing on DirecTV's Sunday Ticket Package*
> 
> Read the rest of the story at: *TVWeek*
> 
> _Note:_Thanks to a poster at SatelliteGuys for linking the article


boo hoo cable subscribers disenfranchised. Nothing stops them from buying a service to give them NFL ST.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

employee3 said:


> Does anyone wonder why there is a Canadian Sat gray market now? StarChoice and Bev both offer Sunday Ticket for $100 a season... *AND* you can do it month to month for $25.
> 
> That being said, I'm a DirecTv sub with Sunday ticket and Superfan for the HD... I also love the Red Zone channel, so there is value-added there.


No.

There are no Canadian NFL teams. So the demand for the Sunday ticket package in Canada is well below what it is here in the US. Multiple Carriers, third of the cost, month-to-month availability and still way fewer subs than what the US market has.

By the way, a full subscription to the 46 ppv NHL hockey games on StarChoice will cost you $450!!! Or you could pay $12 per game.

Law of supply and demand, people...


----------



## saleen351 (Mar 28, 2006)

While this hearing will have no consequences, it would be nice for the gov to strip dtv of a monopoly because i'll short the stock and retire.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

saleen351 said:


> While this hearing will have no consequences, it would be nice for the gov to strip dtv of a monopoly because i'll short the stock and retire.


I understand your desire to retire (as I also have) but what monopoly does DTV have? If anyone does, it would be the NFL.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

saleen351 said:


> While this hearing will have no consequences, it would be nice for the gov to strip dtv of a monopoly because i'll short the stock and retire.


Monopoly? Government intervention in Sunday Ticket?

This is just plain sad.


----------



## employee3 (Aug 15, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> By the way, a full subscription to the 46 ppv NHL hockey games on StarChoice will cost you $450!!! Or you could pay $12 per game.


Yeah, but that's $450 _Canadian_ j/k

Good points, but it's still the same games broadcast and it's cheaper. Supply and demand does play a part for sure, but it could be cheaper down here with competition... and I could do without the blackout situation as well.

There is no way blackouts should be enforced if I'm _paying_ for NFL Sunday Ticket... the NFL still get's there $$$, maybe I just don't feel like going to a Chargers/Raiders game and risking my life.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

employee3 said:


> Supply and demand does play a part for sure, but it could be cheaper down here with competition...


You've missed the point. The NFL doesn't have to compete with itself.

The NHL, NBA and Major League Baseball each have out-of-market packages. These packages are available to any carrier. The stipulation is that the league charges the prices for the package, and splits the money with the carrier.

So, if one assumes that of a $200 subscription to NHL Center Ice with about 500,000 subscribers, the Center Ice package makes $100 million a year. The NHL receives half of it. $50 million.

The NFL is making $700 million a year on their exclusivity from the Sunday Ticket package. Considering that Sunday Ticket has never had 3 million subscribers, pay attention to this math if the package were available to everyone:

3 million subscribers X $300 per package = $900 million a year. Half of that would go to the NFL, which puts the value at $450 million for the year. And this is using high estimates for both subscribers and package dollars.

I don't know about you, but where I'm from I'd never give up $700 million guaranteed to a possible $450 million, or $250 million a year *voluntarily*.


----------



## rhf123 (Nov 3, 2006)

Losing exclusivity over the NFL would be a big loss (and perhaps a death blow) to DirecTV. It would allow cable operators to extend their monopoly and mean fewer dish subscribers. I have Dish Network and I oppose opening NFL Sunday Ticket to the world. Let the winner in the marketplace dictate the rights. While the NFL has an exempt status, watching football games is not inscribed in the Constitution.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

saleen351 said:


> While this hearing will have no consequences, it would be nice for the gov to strip dtv of a monopoly because i'll short the stock and retire.


What monopoly? NFL sells a product, DirecTV buys it. How is that a monopoly?  :eek2:


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

rhf123 said:


> Losing exclusivity over the NFL would be a big loss (and perhaps a death blow) to DirecTV. It would allow cable operators to extend their monopoly and mean fewer dish subscribers. I have Dish Network and I oppose opening NFL Sunday Ticket to the world. Let the winner in the marketplace dictate the rights. While the NFL has an exempt status, watching football games is not inscribed in the Constitution.


I'm not sure about a death blow. After all, there would still be competition. There are many DTV subs out there that don't watch ST yet they still choose DTV over cable.


----------



## employee3 (Aug 15, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> You've missed the point. The NFL doesn't have to compete with itself.
> 
> The NHL, NBA and Major League Baseball each have out-of-market packages. These packages are available to any carrier. The stipulation is that the league charges the prices for the package, and splits the money with the carrier.
> 
> ...


You are missing the point : lower the price, more subscribers. Allow dish to carry and even more subscribers. And who says NFL would only get 50%? Are you telling me you think Dish wouldn't carry Sunday Ticket if they _only_ made 25%?

And you aren't even considering if cable carried.


----------



## cbearnm (Sep 6, 2006)

cookpr said:


> I think Club Steeler hit it on the head...this is likely about D* forcing you to subscribe to Total Choice and all the committments they comamnd of you in order to get Sunday Ticket. I can't imagine its about D* have exclusive rights....but I have been known to be wrong.


That's exactly it. The Total Choice sub, in a large degree, subsidizes the Sunday Ticket. 
Does anybody have the number of ST subs. I would bet, that even at current pricing, ST (by itself) is a loser for D*. They are counting on the continuing subs to make the profit. ST is used to lure subscribers in. It's the old razor and blades marketing. Give away the razor and make it up on the blades.
We are talking about football, for goodness sake, not water or air. It is a luxury, not a necessity, by any means. (And I have been a ST sub for 9 years.) If it's worth it to you, get it, if not, then don't.
I can't believe that the US Senate is wasting any time on this. And I'm not one of those that think that government can only do one thing at a time. I know that there are dozens of topics being worked on all the time, but to try to legislate a free market is a waste of energy and effort.
The NFL is the only pro sport that broadcasts (OTA) ALL of their games, albeit in local markets. Even in areas like here in New Mexico, where the closest local team is in Denver, we get 3 games every weekend, broadcast over the air. Then the full playoffs and Super Bowl are available to all viewers of the major networks.
I don't feel sorry for D*, they are a for-profit entity in a capitalistic society. They are beholden to the shareholders. Yes, ST is the primary reason I have D*, but I get much more than just ST from it. I get reliability that is much greater than cable, a better picture than over the air and all the programming I care for (except maybe HBO Comedy, maybe the gov't should investigate that.)

Total Choice is $45/month x 24 months = $1080
ST is $250/season x 2 = $500
Receiver is free
$1580 for 24 month

If you MUST have HD
$99 receiver = $99
$99 Superfan x 2 = $198
$1877 for 2 years.​
For someone that lives where I do and wants to attend one game (for four of us) in person per year (for my beloved Steelers), you can easily spend that on tickets alone. Then add in airfare (or driving), hotels, meals, etc.. and suddenly ST looks like a big bargain. Plus you get 24 months of entertainment.
Personally, I would like to eat at the Four Seasons at least once a month, but frankly, the cost is too much for me. I think they should be required to open a low cost restaurant in my town so that I can exercise that 'right'. I think the menu should be priced no more than the median meal cost in Santa Fe. In fact, all sit down restaurants should charge no more than $8.00 per meal, come to think of it. That way someone working at (the local) minimum wage can buy a meal with one hours wage (before taxes). Why should low wage earners be discriminated against because they don't make as much money. Do they not want Filet Mignon ? Isn't that their right ? 
It's football people. Work an extra shift once or twice per month, cut back on cigs or beer, ride your bike instead of your car. If it's not worth the effort, you really don't NEED it.
Now can someone direct to me to a Lotus dealership with new $5,000 Lotus Esprits ??


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

tommyb said:


> Some of it comes down to the fact that D* is available to everybody...


Not true! I am forced to pay some pretty premium rent for an apartment that had a balcony AND faced southwest. DirecTV is available for homeowners, but trust me... for renters it is a pain in the butt! There are LOTS and LOTS of people out there who can't set up a DirecTV dish. Cable is their only option. It's not really all that feasible to move just for Sunday Ticket.

What I WOULD like to see is Congress mandating a firewire output on DirecTV boxes.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

In my opinion, they should dump it all and save the bandwidth for more HD programming


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

I recall reading/hearing something long ago...that one reason the NFL went with a single provider (in addition to the $$ they could demand) was to help mollify concerns that the network affiliates had about all games being available (and thus a significant portion of their viewers not seeing their local commercials). One provider would limit this "damage."


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

richiephx said:


> In my opinion, they should dump it all and save the bandwidth for more HD programming


So if DTV dumped the revenue for ST would you be willing to pay > $100/mo to get more HD programming and to make up the drop in revenue from ST? Sure, you may not be interested, but plenty of us are and pay extra for that service.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

jasonblair said:


> Not true! I am forced to pay some pretty premium rent for an apartment that had a balcony AND faced southwest. DirecTV is available for homeowners, but trust me... for renters it is a pain in the butt! There are LOTS and LOTS of people out there who can't set up a DirecTV dish. Cable is their only option. It's not really all that feasible to move just for Sunday Ticket.
> 
> What I WOULD like to see is Congress mandating a firewire output on DirecTV boxes.


That has nothing to do with DTV or the availability of DTV. I'm not sure of the legality of forcing tenants to pay for service. I'd guess there are FCC rules. But the fact that your landlord forces you to use his service doesn't mean DTV isn't available to everyone. Tell them you will be getting your own dish and receivers. If you cannot get out of that, it's your decision to move.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

employee3 said:


> You are missing the point : lower the price, more subscribers. Allow dish to carry and even more subscribers. And who says NFL would only get 50%? Are you telling me you think Dish wouldn't carry Sunday Ticket if they only made 25%?


I am not missing any point.

If all of a sudden Dish Network was able to have Sunday Ticket just like DirecTV, tell me how many Dish Network subscribers would sign up for it.

The subscriptions to Sunday Ticket have been somewhat stagnant. Many people sign up during August and September to take the "buy Sunday Ticket and receive Total Choice Premier free for four months" offer.

I showed you numbers. Now you figure something out that proves me wrong.

The NFL dictates to DirecTV to pay $700 million a year for their exclusive. Simply because of anti-trust concerns, the new scenario is Sunday Ticket can be available to all carriers, however the NFL will dictate the percentage of the take from the carriers.

Yep. Sounds like a real fair deal.


----------



## employee3 (Aug 15, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> I am not missing any point.
> 
> If all of a sudden Dish Network was able to have Sunday Ticket just like DirecTV, tell me how many Dish Network subscribers would sign up for it.
> 
> ...


The numbers you showed are approximate at best. At worst, show your sources. The numbers for Sunday Ticket are stagnant because of the increasing price and people don't necessary want DirecTv. People that really really really want ST have it already. The NFL did not DICTATE $700 million, that's what DirecTv bid and cable walked away.

If Dish had rights to rebroadcast ST, I would guess the number that sign up would be more than 1. Totally unknown because I'm not in the minds of the 10+ million Dish subscribers. That being said I think the overall number of subscribers would increase if it were on Dish and cable.

An interesting article on the last rebid : Rebid Article

As far as a "fair deal" is it fair that DirecTv dictates that I pay $249 for Sunday Ticket? Sure, they need to at least *try* and break even, but it's more of a loss leader than anything else to get people to buy their regular programming.


----------



## luckydob (Oct 2, 2006)

YEA! I'm sure that people are mad as hell that Comcast doesn't have the God Channel yet. Where are the hearings on this one?

Get over it already.

And to the people complaining about the cost for NFLST...have you ever paid to go to one NFL game in person? That will run you at least 100-150 dollars PER GAME. 249.00 for an entire season is a steal. Like my Dad always said, "if you can't afford it, get a job. If that doesn't help, you don't need it."


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

The Senate should investigate why only Dish has the Voom channels. There must be at least one viewer who would want it.


----------



## monetnj (Sep 28, 2004)

bobnielsen said:


> The Senate should investigate why only Dish has the Voom channels. There must be at least one viewer who would want it.


I think the Voom channels are open to anyone. D* just doesn't have the bandwidth to provide them.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

employee3 said:


> At worst, show your sources. The numbers for Sunday Ticket are stagnant because of the increasing price and people don't necessary want DirecTv. People that really really really want ST have it already.


So you just walked into my point. The NFL does not want Sunday Ticket proliferized into the entire multichannel industry. The NFL wants the Sunday Ticket package to work like every other broadcast package they have: an exclusive to a provider so they can gain the most dollars for the package. If the NFL does give access to all providers, the $700 million a year guarantee from DirecTV is gone, replaced by whatever the NFL will charge the customer through all mulitchannel providers. And you can bet the multichannel providers will demand their slice of a non-exclusive pie.

You do realize the NHL, NBA and Major League Baseball all set the price between operators? You cannot shop around for the best price between DirecTV, Dish Network or your local FiOS or cable company, as they are all given the same price.


----------



## cybrsurfer (Sep 17, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> So you just walked into my point. The NFL does not want Sunday Ticket proliferized into the entire multichannel industry. The NFL wants the Sunday Ticket package to work like every other broadcast package they have: an exclusive to a provider so they can gain the most dollars for the package. If the NFL does give access to all providers, the $700 million a year guarantee from DirecTV is gone, replaced by whatever the NFL will charge the customer through all mulitchannel providers. And you can bet the multichannel providers will demand their slice of a non-exclusive pie.
> 
> You do realize the NHL, NBA and Major League Baseball all set the price between operators? You cannot shop around for the best price between DirecTV, Dish Network or your local FiOS or cable company, as they are all given the same price.


The NFL will get more income from more providers instead of just one. They will get far more then 700 million per year if they open up availability to all carriers.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> That has nothing to do with DTV or the availability of DTV. I'm not sure of the legality of forcing tenants to pay for service. I'd guess there are FCC rules. But the fact that your landlord forces you to use his service doesn't mean DTV isn't available to everyone. Tell them you will be getting your own dish and receivers. If you cannot get out of that, it's your decision to move.


Here are the FCC rules.... Your landlord cannot stop you from setting up a dish IF that dish is:

A) not in a "common area" of the property
B) the property is not zoned in a historic district.

The thing is, the only areas that are not the "common area" of the property are 1) inside your apartment, and 2) on the balcony/patio.

Here are the problems....

1) A lot of apartments/condos don't have balconies or patios.
2) 75% of balconies don't face south.

The landlord is in no way required to allow you to put a dish on the roof, outside wall, etc. And it has been my experience that most landlord will NOT permit you to do so.

SO in effect, there are A LOT of people out there who CANNOT receive DirecTV or Dish, even if they wanted to.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

jasonblair said:


> Here are the FCC rules.... Your landlord cannot stop you from setting up a dish IF that dish is:
> 
> A) not in a "common area" of the property
> B) the property is not zoned in a historic district.
> ...


True. But then that's why when I lived in a apartment I made it a requirement to have a south or west facing balcony area and now that I live in a house, when looking for a new one it must have a clear view of the southwest sky or else we won't buy it. Just depends what your priority is I guess.


----------



## employee3 (Aug 15, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> And you can bet the multichannel providers will demand their slice of a non-exclusive pie.


Why would you assume that? Don't you think Dish and cable providers would _LOVE_ to be on the same playing field (programming wise) as DirecTv? Hell, Dish even fakes the NFL Network as being some great thing to have 24/7.

Again, even if your _theory_ is correct about NFL charging the same to all providers, there are just some people that do not want DirecTv, but would love to have Sunday Ticket. Look at all the pissing and moaning when it comes to just getting DirecTv (or any sat provider) installed at peoples houses. To be honest, cable is a lot easier for most people. The fact remains that if Sunday Ticket were opened up to all multichannel providers, the number of subs for ST would increase.



Greg Bimson said:


> You do realize the NHL, NBA and Major League Baseball all set the price between operators? You cannot shop around for the best price between DirecTV, Dish Network or your local FiOS or cable company, as they are all given the same price.


Again, what does this have to do with the way that the NFL would handle it? It's clear that they don't handle TV the way the other sports do. What would make you think the NFL would be the same? Do you think maybe NFL could take a PPV shot at things? After all, you can't watch 8 simultaneous games... I for one think this would be a GREAT way to make revenues.

I'm not saying that the way that the NFL does TV is bad. Hell, I sub to ST and Superfan... because I like DirecTv and the NFL. I'm just saying that even if the NFL were forced to open up ST, I don't think it would be a bad thing for either them or the consumer. It would probably be a bad thing for DirecTv because I'm sure there are subs that just deal with DirecTv because they absolutely have to have ST.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

employee3 said:


> Why would you assume that? Don't you think Dish and cable providers would LOVE to be on the same playing field (programming wise) as DirecTv?


Sure. But the moment that DirecTV loses Sunday Ticket exclusively, the NFL loses $700 million a year. Now the NFL must recoup $700 million a year from all multichannel providers.

And the article you referenced stated that Comcast was offering the NFL no where near that amount of money, for an exclusive.

So, once again, while everyone is asking me for my proof or my theories, some espouse the theory that opening up Sunday Ticket will give the NFL even MORE money. But the analysis isn't there. Such as...


Greg Bimson said:


> You do realize the NHL, NBA and Major League Baseball all set the price between operators? You cannot shop around for the best price between DirecTV, Dish Network or your local FiOS or cable company, as they are all given the same price.





employee3 said:


> Again, what does this have to do with the way that the NFL would handle it? It's clear that they don't handle TV the way the other sports do.


Okay. Simple.

The NFL will move themselves from an exclusive arrangement with DirecTV, to a non-exclusive arrangement. The NFL will demand a certain amount of money from each provider. Yet the NFL will not allow a price war to start between say Comcast and Dish Network over the pricing of Sunday Ticket to their customers. Therefore, the NFL will retain the right to price to the end user. If the NFL does this, this means the provider has no control in pricing. So, how do those providers expect to make money off of this? They certainly aren't going to carry it for free.

All I ask is that people think things through. You cannot say the NFL would make a ton more money offering Sunday Ticket to everyone without understanding the economics that might cause the reverse to be true.


----------



## Bobman (Jan 3, 2006)

I think more to the point, the NFLST is what's keeping some with DirecTV as you cant get it anywhere else. Its a BIG selling point and advantage DirecTV has over everyone else.

I know a few people myself that would leave DirecTV in a heartbeat if Verizon or Comcast in their area had the NFLST.

The NFL would not lose a penny and the package price for consumers would 100% without a doubt go down if every provider could carry it as the number of subscribers would increase 10-100 fold.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Plus the fact if the NFL thought they would make more money by offering ST to multiple providers they would have done it 10 years ago. Tagliabue was no fool when it came to money and marketing the NFL.
Obviously the economics might change by 2010 when the current contract ends with DirecTV but obviously 2 years ago the NFL signed contracts with all providers thru 2010 or 2011 with confidence this was the way to make the most money over that span of time.

I love all the "back seat" bean counters around here.  The NFL does what is good for the NFL. It's like the mob. If giving ST to cable, dish, directv and fios was in their best interest and would make them more money they would already be doing it.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

So here we go, and look at it from the NFL's point of view...


Bobman said:


> I think more to the point, the NFLST is what's keeping some with DirecTV as you cant get it anywhere else. Its a BIG selling point and advantage DirecTV has over everyone else.


So, the NFL will lose their $700 million guarantee from DirecTV, because DirecTV will not pony up $700 million for a non-exclusive. Oh where will the NFL make this money up?


Bobman said:


> I know a few people myself that would leave DirecTV in a heartbeat if Verizon or Comcast in their area had the NFLST.


So this means if the NFL provided Sunday Ticket as they do the NFL Network (either on a normal or pay-per-view tier), the NFL would have to have multiple carriage agreements with multiple multichannel vendors. And each vendor, just as they do currently with the NHL, NBA and MLB, would demand their slice of the pie.


Bobman said:


> The NFL would not lose a penny and the package price for consumers would 100% without a doubt go down if every provider could carry it as the number of subscribers would increase 10-100 fold.


If the number of subscribers increase 10 fold and the subscription price is lowered, the NFL would still make less money than they do now. Not to mention that if Sunday Ticket subscriptions went from 2.5 million households to 25 million households, that the values of their contracts with CBS and FOX would also drop.

What is so hard to understand? Everyone thinks that if Sunday Ticket were available to all, that the natural competition between cable and satellite will cause the price to drop. Yet prices for Center Ice, League Pass and Extra Innings never drop as the leagues themselves are responsible for setting the price.

So would people like to rethink this from the beginning to the logical end?

The NFL would set the price to the end user. The cable and the satellite companies would take their cut. Too much proliferation of Sunday Ticket and CBS and FOX would demand some rebates for their contracts.

But no one wants to think about any of this.


----------



## employee3 (Aug 15, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> If the number of subscribers increase 10 fold and the subscription price is lowered, the NFL would still make less money than they do now. Not to mention that if Sunday Ticket subscriptions went from 2.5 million households to 25 million households, that the values of their contracts with CBS and FOX would also drop.


You want math? Fine :

25,000,000 subs to NFL Sunday Ticket for $100 (way way cheaper than it is now) is 2.5 Billion. Your estimation of 1/2 that going to NFL is 1.25 billion. 1.25 billion is more than 700 million.

Another result of this would be that instead of losing money, or just breaking even (as the number indicate), DirecTv would actually make 125 million (at $100 a sub) if they were able to keep 2.5 million subs.

Why would the value of FOX and CBS contracts drop? Their reason for buying their packages is completely different than DirecTv. They still get to advertise!!! In fact, the advertisements are now going to more people!!!!!


----------



## bluedogok (Sep 9, 2006)

luckydob said:


> And to the people complaining about the cost for NFLST...have you ever paid to go to one NFL game in person? That will run you at least 100-150 dollars PER GAME. 249.00 for an entire season is a steal. Like my Dad always said, "if you can't afford it, get a job. If that doesn't help, you don't need it."


We paid $284 for Dallas-Tampa Bay tickets on Thanksgiving Day, one game only which did not include parking. ST is a pretty good deal.



employee3 said:


> Why would the value of FOX and CBS contracts drop? Their reason for buying their packages is completely different than DirecTv. They still get to advertise!!! In fact, the advertisements are now going to more people!!!!!


Because the affiliates would scream bloody murder and they would want those fees to the networks cut a bunch since they could not guarantee a certain amount of sets watching the local broadcast and local advertisers.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

employee3 said:


> You want math? Fine :
> 
> 25,000,000 subs to NFL Sunday Ticket for $100 (way way cheaper than it is now) is 2.5 Billion. Your estimation of 1/2 that going to NFL is 1.25 billion. 1.25 billion is more than 700 million.


I don't see that happening. There's plenty of NFL fans, but not that many willing to pay $100. Where did you get that 25M #?


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Is there currently a HUGE number of people that are E* or cable subscribers that would want to subscribe to ST if it were available to them? Or would the number of E* and cable subscribers who would purchase ST be made up more of people who defected from D* because ST was now available somewhere else?

Basically, would there be a whole lot more people subscribing to ST or would the people subscribing just be spread out among more providers?

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

After posting the above questions, the next thread I read was this one: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=723234#post723234

Clicking the "View first unread" took me to responses 5, 6, and 7 - all of which pretty much say, "If ST wasn't exclusive to D*, I'd be gone." Brings me back to the questions above.


----------



## employee3 (Aug 15, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> I don't see that happening. There's plenty of NFL fans, but not that many willing to pay $100. Where did you get that 25M #?


Greg's post above mine. An example, but proved that they weren't losing money at that rate.


----------



## employee3 (Aug 15, 2006)

bluedogok said:


> Because the affiliates would scream bloody murder and they would want those fees to the networks cut a bunch since they could not guarantee a certain amount of sets watching the local broadcast and local advertisers.


Umm, no, they'd be blacked out locally just like today.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

employee3 said:


> Why would the value of FOX and CBS contracts drop? Their reason for buying their packages is completely different than DirecTv. They still get to advertise!!! In fact, the advertisements are now going to more people!!!!!


Did you not read the article that was posted earlier? Fox and CBS were already screaming bloody murder 2 years ago with the thought of cable getting Sunday Ticket. Sure the local games on the networks would be blacked out but if cable had ST it would be a whole lot easier for millions of people to tune to a different game, thus not seeing the local advertising. Thus the local affiliate looses tons of money as to the networks.

There were other articles out at the time saying the same thing. Basically Fox and CBS wouldn't pay near what they do now for their exclusive in the various markets. They only barely tolerate ST on DirecTV because of it's limited scope but they already forced local blackouts because of their fear.

So perhaps the NFL would make more with ST subs then they do now, although that's totally a question of how many total may sub. I'd say a better estimate might be 5-10 million if it were on cable. But then you cut the Fox and CBS contracts in half (or even a quarter) and you have a net loss for the NFL.

Keeping ST exclusive allows the NFL to milk as much money out of as many networks/providers as possible. You open up ST and the whole value of their product goes down. Fox and CBS would never pay the huge amounts they do now if ST were available to 80 million homes perhaps taken by 10 million vs. the paltry 2.5 million today.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Wolffpack said:


> I don't see that happening. There's plenty of NFL fans, but not that many willing to pay $100. Where did you get that 25M #?





employee3 said:


> Greg's post above mine. An example, but proved that they weren't losing money at that rate.


Too bad this theory holds no water...

From MediaWeek.com, for the first week of this season:


> CBS' afternoon regional NFL games on Sept. 10 posted an average overnight household rating and share of 8.9/20, up 3 percent from last year's 8.6/19. All of the CBS games were 1 p.m. starts, similar to last season, because of its late afternoon telecast of the men's U.S. Open tennis finals. The ratings are based on overnight, metered markets.





> Fox carried one national NFL game, Dallas Cowboys vs. Jacksonville Jaguars, along with some regional games, averaging a 14.9 household rating, up one percent over the first week last season.


This is from the very first week of this season. The CBS 8.9 rating represents 8.9 percent of the nations 110 million households, or nearly 9.79 million households watching. The FOX national game was a 14.9 rating, or approximately 16.4 million subscribers.

So 25 million households will purchase Sunday Ticket, but only 16.4 million would watch the national game? The numbers in this theory are just plain *WRONG.*


----------



## iceman2a (Dec 30, 2005)

*"The whole* _(NFLST on D*), _*is worth more than the sum of it's parts!* _(NFLST split up amoung all providers)_*"*

to everyone,D*, the NFL, and the networks!


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> Too bad this theory holds no water...
> 
> From MediaWeek.com, for the first week of this season:This is from the very first week of this season. The CBS 8.9 rating represents 8.9 percent of the nations 110 million households, or nearly 9.79 million households watching. The FOX national game was a 14.9 rating, or approximately 16.4 million subscribers.
> 
> So 25 million households will purchase Sunday Ticket, but only 16.4 million would watch the national game? The numbers in this theory are just plain *WRONG.*


_Never let facts get in the way of a good argument!..._


----------



## NFLnut (Sep 29, 2006)

I'm a conservative Republican, and it's this anti-business, non-conservative politics that lost them this election! As much as it kills me to see Nancy Pelosi in control of Congress, it serves my party right to take the back seat! They wasted the last six years with idiotic do-nothing, big-spending tactics!

Cable had the opportunity to bid. They came in short!


----------



## bluedogok (Sep 9, 2006)

employee3 said:


> Umm, no, they'd be blacked out locally just like today.


As the post following yours stated, me watching and out of market game on ST precludes me watching the local inserted ads that the locals thrive on. That is what the local affiliates scream about. If it was merely up to the national networks, they probably wouldn't care as you stated their ads get watched in any case. But they have to satisfy the the affiliates because the franchise fees paid by them is enormous.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

bluedogok said:


> As the post following yours stated, me watching and out of market game on ST precludes me watching the local inserted ads that the locals thrive on. That is what the local affiliates scream about. If it was merely up to the national networks, they probably wouldn't care as you stated their ads get watched in any case. But they have to satisfy the the affiliates because the franchise fees paid by them is enormous.


A bit off-topic, since it wasn't an ST broadcast, but when ESPN had the Seahawks game a while ago, it was also carried on the local CW station BUT was identical to the ESPN broadcast, complete with ads for ABC programming! The only locally-inserted ads were when they had a break for cable and satellite operators to insert their own ads.


----------



## mitchelljd (Aug 16, 2006)

i understand the argument for free markets and for Directv to be free to overpay to keep the rights to NFL.

But... in the end the NFL package costs way more than it ought to as a subscriber to it on Directv. I think the time is now that the NFL ought to sell the package on EVERY cable/Sat system that can sell it.

Does Don King restrict who can sell PPV of his boxing fights? no... instead he wants it carried and sold everywhere it can be.

NFL ought to be avail on all cable/sat systems, not just DirecTV


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

And as a boxing promoter for a PPV event, Don King only receives a share of the revenue while the cable or satellite system gets some of the money.

Instead, the NFL receives a guaranteed $700 million from DirecTV, and it is quite plausible that if the NFL ever decided to move Sunday Ticket to a non-exclusive status that the NFL wouldn't make as much money.


----------



## ClubSteeler (Sep 27, 2005)

It's humorous to see all you people so worried about D* making so much money.

Who cares?

Competition always benefits the consumer in the long run. 

If NFLST goes nationwide, yay for us, the football fans all over the country can get it.

With it being so readily available, prices might start to drop. Yay for us.

If D*'s business is hurt, maybe they will start focusing on quality rather than quantity, Yay for us.

If they need to attract more customers, prices might have to drop, Yay for us.

Should they have to downsize and focus more on customer service, Yay for us.

Should local cable companies sniff a weakness, they will have an opportunity to follow the lead of cable companies like mine that offer 100% all digital channels, less compression, no upfront costs, no service fees, same monthly bill, no mandatory commitments, and a much better DVR than D*. Once again, HOORAY for us!!!


How any of you could be against having NFLST availabe to nearly every football fan in the nation is beyond me. What could your reasoning possibly be? Selfish? Worried about your beloved TV provider's bottom line? TV most important thing in your life? Nothing better to do than watch TV that noonce else can receive and feel good about that?

Come on....

If just one person, one little Joe Shmo is made happy by being able to get NFLST, than I say GOOD!!!

Competition is a good thing.

Plus, let's watch how everyone markets it... Think superfan is a good idea. Imagine if every provider started added bonuses like shortcut games etc.... A little outside the box thinking... Competition is always best for the end consumer.

I hope everyone can rest tonight knowing that D*'s bottom line....

Don't worrty though, they just pocketed over $300Million by taking all that money we spend on boxes and calling it a lease fee and writing off the leased equipment, HOORAY FOR THEM!!!


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Competition is a good thing...

But...... there is also the other side of the argument.

What is to say that if they release the exclusive contract with DirecTV... the Sunday Ticket will get any better (or even stay the same), or will cost Less or More? Sunday Ticket could in fact turn it something closer to League Pass, or the College packages... with no frills... no added benefits... and iffy coverage.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

ClubSteeler said:


> It's humorous to see all you people so worried about D* making so much money.


DirecTV doesn't make money off of Sunday Ticket. This is the first year of five where DirecTV will pay the NFL $700 million a year. There is no likely way DirecTV makes $700 million in Sunday Ticket subscriptions by themselves.


ClubSteeler said:


> If NFLST goes nationwide, yay for us, the football fans all over the country can get it.
> 
> With it being so readily available, prices might start to drop. Yay for us.


"Might". How so, though?


ClubSteeler said:


> Plus, let's watch how everyone markets it... Think superfan is a good idea. Imagine if every provider started added bonuses like shortcut games etc.... A little outside the box thinking... Competition is always best for the end consumer.


Here is the problem you are missing...

Competition doesn't drive the cost of the package down. The NHL, NBA and MLB all set the pricing of their out-of-market sports packages. What would make you think the NFL wouldnt' do so?

Besides, I'm not concerned about DirecTV losing money. I would be more concerned about the NFL losing money. Make Sunday Ticket available nationwide, it devalues the Sunday afternoon contracts currently held by CBS and FOX. If Sunday Ticket is modeled after the other out-of-market sports packages, then the NFL will have to give up half of their revenue for every package sold.

Repeat after me... there is no competition for Center Ice, there is no competition for League Pass, there is no competition for Extra Innings. If the NFL is available to all carriers, there is still no competition for Sunday Ticket. The pricing would remain very similar to the current structure.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> DirecTV doesn't make money off of Sunday Ticket.


So what, you've seen the DTV books? You know how they accrue their debts and distribute their revenue? Aside from that, I'd agree DTV doesn't make a profit from ST on it's own.....DUH. But as a "loss leader", keeping those ST loyal subscribers that pay > $100/mo, DTV.....in the end...makes $$$ off of ST.


----------



## earthymoon (Nov 21, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What is to say that if they release the exclusive contract with DirecTV... the Sunday Ticket will get any better (or even stay the same), or will cost Less or More? Sunday Ticket could in fact turn it something closer to League Pass, or the College packages... with no frills... no added benefits... and iffy coverage.


Doesn't DTV have exclusives to March Madness too? I know there's some interactive features with that Sports Sub. ST has LOTs of neat interactive features. If it's open to others (like the evil Commie-Cast :-D) you know they're not going to do anything with it. It's kind of funny that cable is turning around and using the 1992 ACT against another provider considering the fact that it was first put in place to protect providers against big cable companies. You should have seen the cable war down here when another company tried to come into Comcast's territory. They about ate them alive. Awww it sucks when you have comp. Doesn't it? :lol:


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

ClubSteeler said:


> It's humorous to see all you people so worried about D* making so much money.
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> ...


That was not the point of any of the previous posters. The original argument was triggered by the suggestion that if Congress decides to rule that the NFL somehow holds a 'monopoly on itself' and to forces them to alter their marketing strategy, that they would make more money as a result.
Well that supposition is plain wrong. The NFL has the most lucrative of all broadcast rights packages for one simple reason, it is the most desired porgramming on the market and the broadcasters are willing to pay enormous fees to obtain 'EXCLUSIVE' rights to it. 
Obviously, if the NFLST were available to all carriers, the price to the consumer would drop and more people would subscribe, but that would cause a huge drop in the revenues generated by the exclusive rights agreements.


----------



## bluedogok (Sep 9, 2006)

If ST went to all cable/sat systems I imagine it would be just like the Center Ice and MLB Extra Inning s that I have, the same price everywhere as set by the league. If you were to sell it at a lower price I am sure that you would nullify your licensing agreement with the whatever league you are dealing with. So I don't see "competition" bringing the price down of any of them, because they don't have to lower the price if they don't want to. You can watch any of the sports on cable or OTA, maybe not the team that you want but we were never guaranteed that was free either.

As someone who lives in a state where "deregulation" has been implemented in utilities you can find people all over Texas whose electric, gas and phone bills that have gone up as a result of deregulation. "Competition" has had the opposite effect in many cases and in this age of consolidation it doesn't guarantee anything.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

And people talk about cable being able to get it like it's D* or E* - one entity for the entire country. The way I understand it, not even all the Comcrap or TW cable companies are all tied as one national entity, but a bunch of smaller, localized cable companies. It would certainly cost the NFL money to have to negotiate with all those additional entities.

Or maybe I just don't understand the cable industry correctly.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

JLucPicard said:


> And people talk about cable being able to get it like it's D* or E* - one entity for the entire country. The way I understand it, not even all the Comcrap or TW cable companies are all tied as one national entity, but a bunch of smaller, localized cable companies. It would certainly cost the NFL money to have to negotiate with all those additional entities.
> 
> Or maybe I just don't understand the cable industry correctly.


Obviously... cf. the NFL Network.


----------

