This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Ah, good point.But would marketing (selling) your own product violate that law? I mean, not that they would, but couldn't the NFL play ALL of their games on their network if they chose to?I have no idea, just asking.
A monopoly in how a corporation distributes its products?
True, but that was a "service" Monopoly. Much like the power or cable companies, you, as a consumer, have to have alternatives or you are dealing with what is considered a monopoly. But "Product" monopolies, are a different beast.It really depends on what Congress would deem the NFL. At it's base, the NFL is football. So the "Service" monopoly would have to be decided on if they own (or controlling) the consumers right to view football. There are many options for football fans to watch football, college football being the prime example. Plus, no-one is stopping another company from starting its own league, XFL for example. So the "Service" monopoly can't exist for the NFL.Now with "Product" Monopolies the NFL is providing its own version of football. They own this product, and shouldn't ... again, shouldn't have regulations on how the promote and/or sell its version of a product.At least that is my take.Lord knows I have been wrong before.Exactly like Ma Bell, which was broken up in the 80's for being a monopoly.
Now just to clarify, I am not talking about the NFL putting ALL of the games on their network (Although I did ask if legally they could), but I had heard that they will start offering the same "package plans" that Direct TV offers, and was wondering if that is true.(Or at least that is how this topic was started)
I'm not following yaI don't think we're disagreeing hereptsteelers said:Now just to clarify, I am not talking about the NFL putting ALL of the games on their network (Although I did ask if legally they could), but I had heard that they will start offering the same "package plans" that Direct TV offers, and was wondering if that is true.(Or at least that is how this topic was started)Bri said:
I don't think we are either.I just wanted to clarify the "all games" comment.(wasn't sure if you were talking about kicking CBS/NBC/FOX out of the viewership.)My bad, Too much coffee, time to pop that cap on the bottle.I'm not following yaI don't think we're disagreeing hereptsteelers said:Now just to clarify, I am not talking about the NFL putting ALL of the games on their network (Although I did ask if legally they could), but I had heard that they will start offering the same "package plans" that Direct TV offers, and was wondering if that is true.(Or at least that is how this topic was started)Bri said:
Seems Congress disagrees with your take. Heck, they're threatening to revoke the NFL's exemption from anti-trust laws right now, because of the NFL's failure to reach an agreement with Cable on their distribution of the NFL Network.True, but that was a "service" Monopoly. Much like the power or cable companies, you, as a consumer, have to have alternatives or you are dealing with what is considered a monopoly. But "Product" monopolies, are a different beast.It really depends on what Congress would deem the NFL. At it's base, the NFL is football. So the "Service" monopoly would have to be decided on if they own (or controlling) the consumers right to view football. There are many options for football fans to watch football, college football being the prime example. Plus, no-one is stopping another company from starting its own league, XFL for example. So the "Service" monopoly can't exist for the NFL.Exactly like Ma Bell, which was broken up in the 80's for being a monopoly.
Now with "Product" Monopolies the NFL is providing its own version of football. They own this product, and shouldn't ... again, shouldn't have regulations on how the promote and/or sell its version of a product.
At least that is my take.
Lord knows I have been wrong before.
Sorry BigScore, I just seen this post. My old eyes are failing me.Seems Congress disagrees with your take. Heck, they're threatening to revoke the NFL's exemption from anti-trust laws right now, because of the NFL's failure to reach an agreement with Cable on their distribution of the NFL Network.True, but that was a "service" Monopoly. Much like the power or cable companies, you, as a consumer, have to have alternatives or you are dealing with what is considered a monopoly. But "Product" monopolies, are a different beast.It really depends on what Congress would deem the NFL. At it's base, the NFL is football. So the "Service" monopoly would have to be decided on if they own (or controlling) the consumers right to view football. There are many options for football fans to watch football, college football being the prime example. Plus, no-one is stopping another company from starting its own league, XFL for example. So the "Service" monopoly can't exist for the NFL.
Now with "Product" Monopolies the NFL is providing its own version of football. They own this product, and shouldn't ... again, shouldn't have regulations on how the promote and/or sell its version of a product.
At least that is my take.
Lord knows I have been wrong before.
Imagine the howl from Congress if the NFL tried to take over the Sunday Ticket & start their own "NFL Packages".
Short of the NFL starting up their own broadcasting company (not just a network as they have now, but an actual broadcasting company like CBS, NBC, ABC or FOX, launching their own Satellite or establishing a Cable Company ~ or buying out any of the existing broadcasting options) to ensure their product is available nationwide, I don't see the NFL ever being allowed to do what you suggest ptsteelers.
You are correct & as an FYI, Congress is eyeing "The Sunday Ticket" as well.The big difference I see between the Sunday Ticket & NFLN, is that just about anybody who really wants the The Sunday Tickect can get it, including people in far rural areas not even serviced by cable.Sorry BigScore, I just seen this post. My old eyes are failing me.Seems Congress disagrees with your take. Heck, they're threatening to revoke the NFL's exemption from anti-trust laws right now, because of the NFL's failure to reach an agreement with Cable on their distribution of the NFL Network.True, but that was a "service" Monopoly. Much like the power or cable companies, you, as a consumer, have to have alternatives or you are dealing with what is considered a monopoly. But "Product" monopolies, are a different beast.It really depends on what Congress would deem the NFL. At it's base, the NFL is football. So the "Service" monopoly would have to be decided on if they own (or controlling) the consumers right to view football. There are many options for football fans to watch football, college football being the prime example. Plus, no-one is stopping another company from starting its own league, XFL for example. So the "Service" monopoly can't exist for the NFL.
Now with "Product" Monopolies the NFL is providing its own version of football. They own this product, and shouldn't ... again, shouldn't have regulations on how the promote and/or sell its version of a product.
At least that is my take.
Lord knows I have been wrong before.
Imagine the howl from Congress if the NFL tried to take over the Sunday Ticket & start their own "NFL Packages".
Short of the NFL starting up their own broadcasting company (not just a network as they have now, but an actual broadcasting company like CBS, NBC, ABC or FOX, launching their own Satellite or establishing a Cable Company ~ or buying out any of the existing broadcasting options) to ensure their product is available nationwide, I don't see the NFL ever being allowed to do what you suggest ptsteelers.
I do understand what you are saying, but I see no difference, in practice, of having the NFL network offer "package deals" then I see Rupert Murdock (DirectTV) having the right to do so. He, Murdock, is paying for the rights to carry the games, exclusively and charging what he deems them to be worth. Why would the NFL network not be allowed to do the same thing? Having a broadcast company does not just entitle you to (using a phrase) monopolize a product if it is not allowed for others to do the same.
If Congress says the NFL is violating the Anti-Trust law, then so is Murdock (or at least the contract itself is in violation). The point of the law was to eliminate unfair business practices (or monopolies) that hurt the costumer or other businesses. I am sure Cable is being hurt by the DirectTV package.
And as far as congress goes ... I certainly hope they stay away from the NFL. I do not want the Government in any more of my stuff then they already are.
Actually the piece that anyone can get ST isnt really true. People who rent apartments sometimes cant. People sometimes due to trees or building cant get a line of sight to the southwest sky.Big Score said:You are correct & as an FYI, Congress is eyeing "The Sunday Ticket" as well.The big difference I see between the Sunday Ticket & NFLN, is that just about anybody who really wants the The Sunday Tickect can get it, including people in far rural areas not even serviced by cable.Sorry BigScore, I just seen this post. My old eyes are failing me.Seems Congress disagrees with your take. Heck, they're threatening to revoke the NFL's exemption from anti-trust laws right now, because of the NFL's failure to reach an agreement with Cable on their distribution of the NFL Network.True, but that was a "service" Monopoly. Much like the power or cable companies, you, as a consumer, have to have alternatives or you are dealing with what is considered a monopoly. But "Product" monopolies, are a different beast.It really depends on what Congress would deem the NFL. At it's base, the NFL is football. So the "Service" monopoly would have to be decided on if they own (or controlling) the consumers right to view football. There are many options for football fans to watch football, college football being the prime example. Plus, no-one is stopping another company from starting its own league, XFL for example. So the "Service" monopoly can't exist for the NFL.
Now with "Product" Monopolies the NFL is providing its own version of football. They own this product, and shouldn't ... again, shouldn't have regulations on how the promote and/or sell its version of a product.
At least that is my take.
Lord knows I have been wrong before.
Imagine the howl from Congress if the NFL tried to take over the Sunday Ticket & start their own "NFL Packages".
Short of the NFL starting up their own broadcasting company (not just a network as they have now, but an actual broadcasting company like CBS, NBC, ABC or FOX, launching their own Satellite or establishing a Cable Company ~ or buying out any of the existing broadcasting options) to ensure their product is available nationwide, I don't see the NFL ever being allowed to do what you suggest ptsteelers.
I do understand what you are saying, but I see no difference, in practice, of having the NFL network offer "package deals" then I see Rupert Murdock (DirectTV) having the right to do so. He, Murdock, is paying for the rights to carry the games, exclusively and charging what he deems them to be worth. Why would the NFL network not be allowed to do the same thing? Having a broadcast company does not just entitle you to (using a phrase) monopolize a product if it is not allowed for others to do the same.
If Congress says the NFL is violating the Anti-Trust law, then so is Murdock (or at least the contract itself is in violation). The point of the law was to eliminate unfair business practices (or monopolies) that hurt the costumer or other businesses. I am sure Cable is being hurt by the DirectTV package.
And as far as congress goes ... I certainly hope they stay away from the NFL. I do not want the Government in any more of my stuff then they already are.
Not so with the NFLN.
The NFLN does not have the ability to broadcast itself, instead having to rely on 3rd party broadcasters to deliver their product. If that 3rd party broadcaster declines to carry them, that's it, they cannot be seen.
Understood. Same as a far larger % of the population cannot get cable as the cable Company's have deemed it to expensive to wire residences in many far rural areas.Actually the piece that anyone can get ST isnt really true. People who rent apartments sometimes cant. People sometimes due to trees or building cant get a line of sight to the southwest sky.You are correct & as an FYI, Congress is eyeing "The Sunday Ticket" as well.The big difference I see between the Sunday Ticket & NFLN, is that just about anybody who really wants the The Sunday Tickect can get it, including people in far rural areas not even serviced by cable.Sorry BigScore, I just seen this post. My old eyes are failing me.Seems Congress disagrees with your take. Heck, they're threatening to revoke the NFL's exemption from anti-trust laws right now, because of the NFL's failure to reach an agreement with Cable on their distribution of the NFL Network.True, but that was a "service" Monopoly. Much like the power or cable companies, you, as a consumer, have to have alternatives or you are dealing with what is considered a monopoly. But "Product" monopolies, are a different beast.It really depends on what Congress would deem the NFL. At it's base, the NFL is football. So the "Service" monopoly would have to be decided on if they own (or controlling) the consumers right to view football. There are many options for football fans to watch football, college football being the prime example. Plus, no-one is stopping another company from starting its own league, XFL for example. So the "Service" monopoly can't exist for the NFL.
Now with "Product" Monopolies the NFL is providing its own version of football. They own this product, and shouldn't ... again, shouldn't have regulations on how the promote and/or sell its version of a product.
At least that is my take.
Lord knows I have been wrong before.
Imagine the howl from Congress if the NFL tried to take over the Sunday Ticket & start their own "NFL Packages".
Short of the NFL starting up their own broadcasting company (not just a network as they have now, but an actual broadcasting company like CBS, NBC, ABC or FOX, launching their own Satellite or establishing a Cable Company ~ or buying out any of the existing broadcasting options) to ensure their product is available nationwide, I don't see the NFL ever being allowed to do what you suggest ptsteelers.
I do understand what you are saying, but I see no difference, in practice, of having the NFL network offer "package deals" then I see Rupert Murdock (DirectTV) having the right to do so. He, Murdock, is paying for the rights to carry the games, exclusively and charging what he deems them to be worth. Why would the NFL network not be allowed to do the same thing? Having a broadcast company does not just entitle you to (using a phrase) monopolize a product if it is not allowed for others to do the same.
If Congress says the NFL is violating the Anti-Trust law, then so is Murdock (or at least the contract itself is in violation). The point of the law was to eliminate unfair business practices (or monopolies) that hurt the costumer or other businesses. I am sure Cable is being hurt by the DirectTV package.
And as far as congress goes ... I certainly hope they stay away from the NFL. I do not want the Government in any more of my stuff then they already are.
Not so with the NFLN.
The NFLN does not have the ability to broadcast itself, instead having to rely on 3rd party broadcasters to deliver their product. If that 3rd party broadcaster declines to carry them, that's it, they cannot be seen.
