MA Senator John Kerry presses NFL about Pats vs. Giants Game (1 Viewer)

[nerangers]

Was just reading this on boston.com

Kerry presses NFL

By Mike Reiss, Globe Staff December 24, 2007 08:34 AM

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has appealed to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to take action to ensure that all Patriots fans in New England, and across the country, will have the chance to view the team's season finale against the Giants.

The game is scheduled to be broadcast on NFL Network. WCVB in Boston (Channel 5) will also carry the game, but that still means parts of New England won't be able to see it.

“In just five days, the Patriots will try to become the first team since Don Shula’s legendary ‘72 Dolphins to finish the regular season undefeated, but huge numbers of Pats fans today wouldn’t be able to see the game. Unless immediate action is taken, thousands of fans outside the Boston area will not even have access to the broadcast,” Kerry said in a press release.

“If this isn’t fixed in a hurry, it speaks volumes about how some big interests see the fans. I hope the NFL sees the error of its ways and allows every ‘twelfth man’ to see this unprecedented event.”

Full text of Kerry's letter can be found Below.

December 24, 2007

Mr. Roger Goodell

Commissioner

National Football League

280 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10017

Dear Commissioner Goodell,

As a Bostonian, I couldn't be more pleased that in just five days, the New England Patriots will attempt to become the first NFL team in 35 years to finish the regular season with an undefeated record. But as someone who represents all of Massachusetts and not just those in the Boston media market, I remain deeply troubled that today as many as 250,000 Massachusetts households, and millions of Patriots fans nationwide, may be denied access to this historic sporting event.

Despite an unwillingness by both sides to strike a compromise that best meets the interest of the fans, there remain several options for making this game widely available. One option is found in what is referred to as the NFL's "flex schedule", which permits the League to switch the currently scheduled Sunday night NBC game for a game of broader public appeal. Electing to air the game on NBC would ensure that every television in America has access to such a historic game. Throughout the season, the NFL has made this decision with respect to other games of high importance and broad national interest.

For a game of this significance to be used as a bargaining chip or point of leverage between corporations locked in a dispute would say a great deal about the esteem in which America's football fans are held by the big interests. Under the unfortunate circumstance that this matter remains unresolved, leaving 60 percent of households across the country - including thousands in Massachusetts - without access to Saturday's game, I will ask the Senate Commerce Committee to hold hearings on how the emergence of premium sports channels are impacting the consumer, and I will consider what legislative measures may be necessary to ensure that consumers are more than bystanders in this process.

I hope very much to see a satisfactory solution achieved. I've offered - and my offer stands - to convene a meeting of all parties with the goal of reaching an 11th hour solution. I hope it is not too late to get something done for fans everywhere. Thank you for consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry

United States Senate

 

[Phurfur]

In NE and NY yes, accross the country no!

 

[King of the Wolfies]

where was Kerry when most of Wisconsin cannot watch a Packers game?

 

[Phurfur]

where was Kerry when most of Wisconsin cannot watch a Packers game?

He is not from Wisconsin. A Wisconsin legislator did step in on that one; Kerry is doing a copy cat.

 

[beermutts52]

Isn't there more important issues in this country than whether or not a football game is viewed by everyone?

Maybe if these guys would put this much effort into fixing what is wrong with this country than nothing would be wrong...

 

[AB in DC]

Isn't there more important issues in this country than whether or not a football game is viewed by everyone?Maybe if these guys would put this much effort into fixing what is wrong with this country than nothing would be wrong...

What effort? It probably took him all of three seconds to approve the press release.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Wow, I never thought I'd open a thread where a guy is trying to help more of us get football games on TV and see nothing but berating of him

 

[Spike]

Isn't there more important issues in this country than whether or not a football game is viewed by everyone?Maybe if these guys would put this much effort into fixing what is wrong with this country than nothing would be wrong...

 

[dparker713]

Millions of Patriot fans nationwide? Jeez, the Pats fans are really starting to get full of themselves.

 

[TitusIII]

The NFL PR machine is licking their chops...BUY NFL NETWORK NOW!

 

[Eric]

Wow, I never thought I'd open a thread where a guy is trying to help more of us get football games on TV and see nothing but berating of him

They don't care about what he did, it's just because they don't like his politics. If it was someone else they'd be applauding it.

 

[Eric]

Isn't there more important issues in this country than whether or not a football game is viewed by everyone?Maybe if these guys would put this much effort into fixing what is wrong with this country than nothing would be wrong...

What effort? It probably took him all of three seconds to approve the press release.

Our president sits in the White House spending his time coming up with ways to invent enemies and kill American tropps, and you guys complain because Kerry took a moment to sign a football-related press release?

 

[JaxBill]

There are a few problems with his press release:

- Only Sunday games can be "flexed"

- The NFL has reportedly agreed to go to arbitration with Time Warner if the other side would agree.

- If he's going to threaten them with congressional action, at least insist on Gumbel's removal as well.

 

[Sabertooth]

where was Kerry when most of Wisconsin cannot watch a Packers game?

Bart Stupak (D) Michigan got it played up here in the U.P.

 

[Muahahaha]

As a capitalist and American (largely the same thing), I fully back the NFL Network on this one.

The cable companies in these areas have the full ability to pony up the dough and get the NFL Network and the various individual subscribers have the ability to get Directv. (If your house can't get Directv, move. If you live in an apartment, buy a house. You have the choice and the ability.)

Deal with it. Welcome to capitalism. North Korea is >>>>>>> way.

 

[Unlucky]

What cable companies don't offer the NFL Network? Time Warner, I assume, but anyone else? Comcast does offer it, and they have a huge market share. Obviously, DirecTV offers it, and I believe Dish Network does as well.

Finally, it's a Saturday night. People COULD actually leave their homes and go to a bar or sports restaurant to watch the game.

I don't get the whole "I can't see the game" BS.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Wow, I never thought I'd open a thread where a guy is trying to help more of us get football games on TV and see nothing but berating of him

Really...It must be the darn liberals I am in NY so I get the game, I also have direct TV, the NFL Package and NFL Network so I get the game...But it is wrong that there are people who simply can't get the game in their living room even if they wanted to pay for it and that is wrong.

 

[Liquid Tension]

As a capitalist and American (largely the same thing), I fully back the NFL Network on this one.The cable companies in these areas have the full ability to pony up the dough and get the NFL Network and the various individual subscribers have the ability to get Directv. (If your house can't get Directv, move. If you live in an apartment, buy a house. You have the choice and the ability.)Deal with it. Welcome to capitalism. North Korea is >>>>>>> way.

Yeah, "move you have the ability"... great and ignorant answer (and I have the ability but others don't).

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Total grandstanding BS. Get Direct. Get the sports package on your cable network. Go to a bar. Go to a friend's house. Scalp a ticket. Listen to the radio. Get an internet stream. There are a hundred ways to watch (or at least listen to) this game if you want to.

Is there some sort of constitutional guarantee that I haven't heard of to see football games for free when they cost millions (billions?) of dollars to produce?

You've got bigger fish to fry John.

For the record, I'm FAR from the typical Republican/conservative. This isn't a political issue (at all).

 

[fatness]

“consider what legislative measures may be necessary to ensure that consumers are more than bystanders in this process.”

LOL at people being against that.

 

[redman]

You still aren't going to be President, John.

 

[BassNBrew]

Isn't there more important issues in this country than whether or not a football game is viewed by everyone?Maybe if these guys would put this much effort into fixing what is wrong with this country than nothing would be wrong...

What effort? It probably took him all of three seconds to approve the press release.

Our president sits in the White House spending his time coming up with ways to invent enemies and kill American tropps, and you guys complain because Kerry took a moment to sign a football-related press release?

Kerry with a pen in his hand releasing drivel is much better than arming him so he can mow down babies and their mommas.

 

[bcr8f]

Isn't there more important issues in this country than whether or not a football game is viewed by everyone?Maybe if these guys would put this much effort into fixing what is wrong with this country than nothing would be wrong...

What effort? It probably took him all of three seconds to approve the press release.

Our president sits in the White House spending his time coming up with ways to invent enemies and kill American tropps, and you guys complain because Kerry took a moment to sign a football-related press release? :X

Kerry with a pen in his hand releasing drivel is much better than arming him so he can mow down babies and their mommas.

WTF is that. Mow down babies and mommas?

 

[Eric]

Isn't there more important issues in this country than whether or not a football game is viewed by everyone?Maybe if these guys would put this much effort into fixing what is wrong with this country than nothing would be wrong...

What effort? It probably took him all of three seconds to approve the press release.

Our president sits in the White House spending his time coming up with ways to invent enemies and kill American tropps, and you guys complain because Kerry took a moment to sign a football-related press release? :X

Kerry with a pen in his hand releasing drivel is much better than arming him so he can mow down babies and their mommas.

WTF is that. Mow down babies and mommas?

He's trying to project the travesties and ineptitudes of the Bush administration on a hypothetical Kerry administration. It's all these people have left, apparently. :X

 

[Eric]

You still aren't going to be President, John.

Does repeating that lessen your feelings of guilt? Your car is probably slathered with magnetic ribbons and desecrated American flags too.

 

[Road Warriors]

Total grandstanding BS. Get Direct. Get the sports package on your cable network. Go to a bar. Go to a friend's house. Scalp a ticket. Listen to the radio. Get an internet stream. There are a hundred ways to watch (or at least listen to) this game if you want to.

Is there some sort of constitutional guarantee that I haven't heard of to see football games for free when they cost millions (billions?) of dollars to produce?

You've got bigger fish to fry John.

For the record, I'm FAR from the typical Republican/conservative. This isn't a political issue (at all).

If it was available on the sports tier from the cable company, we wouldn't have a problem. The NFL won't allow Time Warner to place the channel on a sports tier. I thought Comcast was also on the outs, but I know some Comcast regions do carry it. Does anyone have any facts about which cable companies carry the channel, and which ones carry it on a sports tier?

 

[Chief]

i have no political dogs in this fight, so i will try and steer clear of that train wreck.

i could have it wrong, but this is what i recall reading in an article i read a year or two ago...

if i have it wrong, someone i am sure will correct me

the nfln has problems with the cable companies because the cable companies will not agree to making nfln part of the basic cable package. the cable companies want to put nfln as part of their higher tier packages, thus squeezing the masses for more money for a highly desirable product. thus this is the bone of contention between the two entities.

so, it seems to me that the cable companies are the "bad guys" in this whole mess. the nfl wants the most exposure as possible for their product. as for the politicians, they don't really give a crud about this issue. they just want their name in the paper and want to get behind something that 99% of the population will be on their side and remember that come november.

 

[Road Warriors]

i have no political dogs in this fight, so i will try and steer clear of that train wreck.i could have it wrong, but this is what i recall reading in an article i read a year or two ago... if i have it wrong, someone i am sure will correct me the nfln has problems with the cable companies because the cable companies will not agree to making nfln part of the basic cable package. the cable companies want to put nfln as part of their higher tier packages, thus squeezing the masses for more money for a highly desirable product. thus this is the bone of contention between the two entities.so, it seems to me that the cable companies are the "bad guys" in this whole mess. the nfl wants the most exposure as possible for their product. as for the politicians, they don't really give a crud about this issue. they just want their name in the paper and want to get behind something that 99% of the population will be on their side and remember that come november.

You have the basics right, but the reasoning ( and IMO, the conclusion ) wrong.The NFL tells you they want the NFLN on the basic cable tier so everyone can enjoy. The real reason they want it on the basic tier is that they will charge the cable companies $8/yr for every subscriber. The cable company tells you they don't want to increase the average subscribers bill by bringing specialized content to the basic tier and having to pass the costs on to everyone. The real reason they want to put it on a specialized tier is that they will limit the number of subscribers who have the channel, therefore reducing their payout for carrying the NFLN. In both cases, the corporations that are fighting DO NOT have your best interests at heart. Each corporation is trying to maximize their portion of your money that they get. In the end, from a business standpoint, I think the cable companies are "more right" in their stance. They should be free to offer the content they pay for to distribute as they see fit for their business. The NFL is demanding that every paying cable customer should pony up $8 / year, or rather that the cable company's cost for carrying the NFL network ( a channel that carries 8 NFL games, 4 months worth of replay & highlight shows, and 8 months of pretty useless fluff ) should be several hundred million dollars, and those costs will be passed on to you. A handful of people will be happy to pay for a sports tier to get the NFL network. I would wager that 80-90% of all cable subscribers won't pay for it. Cable should be free to run its business.

 

[mad sweeney]

i have no political dogs in this fight, so i will try and steer clear of that train wreck.i could have it wrong, but this is what i recall reading in an article i read a year or two ago... if i have it wrong, someone i am sure will correct me the nfln has problems with the cable companies because the cable companies will not agree to making nfln part of the basic cable package. the cable companies want to put nfln as part of their higher tier packages, thus squeezing the masses for more money for a highly desirable product. thus this is the bone of contention between the two entities.so, it seems to me that the cable companies are the "bad guys" in this whole mess. the nfl wants the most exposure as possible for their product. as for the politicians, they don't really give a crud about this issue. they just want their name in the paper and want to get behind something that 99% of the population will be on their side and remember that come november.

It's not as cut and dry as to who are the bad guys, but yes that's the short version of it. It costs the cable companies more than other basic cable channels to carry the NFLN, so wanting to put it on their sports tier isn't entirely unreasonable. A lot of sports channels aren't on basic cable. Even some channels like ESPN2 are on the basic "plus" packages, which cost slightly more than regular basic. The NFLN wants more money for their product, and they want to dictate how much companies can charge for it. They are both bad guys in my book, however I put the onus on NFLN to either drop their price or let companies charge what they want. Not everyone who gets cable wants NFLN, so what's the big deal if people who do pay an extra $5 for it along with other sports oriented programming. The irony of it is that NFLN says it wants more people to have access to it, yet by their actions they are keeping over half the cable subscribers in America from getting it.

 

[bcr8f]

i have no political dogs in this fight, so i will try and steer clear of that train wreck.i could have it wrong, but this is what i recall reading in an article i read a year or two ago... if i have it wrong, someone i am sure will correct me the nfln has problems with the cable companies because the cable companies will not agree to making nfln part of the basic cable package. the cable companies want to put nfln as part of their higher tier packages, thus squeezing the masses for more money for a highly desirable product. thus this is the bone of contention between the two entities.so, it seems to me that the cable companies are the "bad guys" in this whole mess. the nfl wants the most exposure as possible for their product. as for the politicians, they don't really give a crud about this issue. they just want their name in the paper and want to get behind something that 99% of the population will be on their side and remember that come november.

It's not as cut and dry as to who are the bad guys, but yes that's the short version of it. It costs the cable companies more than other basic cable channels to carry the NFLN, so wanting to put it on their sports tier isn't entirely unreasonable. A lot of sports channels aren't on basic cable. Even some channels like ESPN2 are on the basic "plus" packages, which cost slightly more than regular basic. The NFLN wants more money for their product, and they want to dictate how much companies can charge for it. They are both bad guys in my book, however I put the onus on NFLN to either drop their price or let companies charge what they want. Not everyone who gets cable wants NFLN, so what's the big deal if people who do pay an extra $5 for it along with other sports oriented programming. The irony of it is that NFLN says it wants more people to have access to it, yet by their actions they are keeping over half the cable subscribers in America from getting it.

If that's true why did they refuse binding arbitration. NFLN offered picking an arbitrator agreed to by both and adhering to what they ruled but Time Warner refused.Look at the both companies books, present both cases and NFLN said they would allow the network until the case was decided.

 

[Phurfur]

Isn't there more important issues in this country than whether or not a football game is viewed by everyone?

Maybe if these guys would put this much effort into fixing what is wrong with this country than nothing would be wrong...

He might think you are what is wrong with this country. Be careful what you wish for, the guy is dangerous.Sorrry Eric, didn't mean to rip your boy but...........................

 

[fatness]

In both cases, the corporations that are fighting DO NOT have your best interests at heart. Each corporation is trying to maximize their portion of your money that they get.

Bingo.

 

[Dodge]

Watching the football game is not a necessity nor is it a right of being a citizen of the United States. You don't need it to live nor does not watching it hinder you in being successful or a contributing citizen. Therefore the NFL can do what ever the hell it wants to do with it's product. You fools are not entitled to anything. Get over it or get Direct TV.

(I should be in Marketing.)

 

[Phurfur]

In both cases, the corporations that are fighting DO NOT have your best interests at heart. Each corporation is trying to maximize their portion of your money that they get.

Bingo.

Actually the cable companies are helping the non football fan by not putting it in there basic package. They want the football fan to pony up which is only fair.

 

[mad sweeney]

i have no political dogs in this fight, so i will try and steer clear of that train wreck.i could have it wrong, but this is what i recall reading in an article i read a year or two ago... if i have it wrong, someone i am sure will correct me the nfln has problems with the cable companies because the cable companies will not agree to making nfln part of the basic cable package. the cable companies want to put nfln as part of their higher tier packages, thus squeezing the masses for more money for a highly desirable product. thus this is the bone of contention between the two entities.so, it seems to me that the cable companies are the "bad guys" in this whole mess. the nfl wants the most exposure as possible for their product. as for the politicians, they don't really give a crud about this issue. they just want their name in the paper and want to get behind something that 99% of the population will be on their side and remember that come november.

It's not as cut and dry as to who are the bad guys, but yes that's the short version of it. It costs the cable companies more than other basic cable channels to carry the NFLN, so wanting to put it on their sports tier isn't entirely unreasonable. A lot of sports channels aren't on basic cable. Even some channels like ESPN2 are on the basic "plus" packages, which cost slightly more than regular basic. The NFLN wants more money for their product, and they want to dictate how much companies can charge for it. They are both bad guys in my book, however I put the onus on NFLN to either drop their price or let companies charge what they want. Not everyone who gets cable wants NFLN, so what's the big deal if people who do pay an extra $5 for it along with other sports oriented programming. The irony of it is that NFLN says it wants more people to have access to it, yet by their actions they are keeping over half the cable subscribers in America from getting it.

If that's true why did they refuse binding arbitration. NFLN offered picking an arbitrator agreed to by both and adhering to what they ruled but Time Warner refused.Look at the both companies books, present both cases and NFLN said they would allow the network until the case was decided.

Well for one, why should they agree to arbitration so someone can tell them how much to charge for their services? How many of the hundreds of channels in existence had to go to arbitration to figure out how much TW can charge for their own broadcasting service?I don't know all the details about the arbitration, but it seems to me to be a PR deal by the NFLN to try and say We Tried right before most of the cable households in MASS and the country in general can't watch the game. Why didn't the NFLN offer arbitration before the season started? Why now at the end of the season, before the last game? They're doing it now because it's a PR nightmare for a history making game to be unavailable for so many fans. I don't think either one of these sides is "the good guy" in this mess. I'll never stick up for a telecom giant as being unfairly picked on. And I think the NFL is butting their heads into a business point that is none of their business.

 

[ThePhillyKid]

Watching the football game is not a necessity nor is it a right of being a citizen of the United States. You don't need it to live nor does not watching it hinder you in being successful or a contributing citizen. Therefore the NFL can do what ever the hell it wants to do with it's product. You fools are not entitled to anything. Get over it or get Direct TV.(I should be in Marketing.)

But having a monopolistic business model is also not a right of operating a business in the United States. Anyway, I'll be watching it on Sopcast, cause I ain't paying for their crap channel.

 

[Road Warriors]

i have no political dogs in this fight, so i will try and steer clear of that train wreck.i could have it wrong, but this is what i recall reading in an article i read a year or two ago... if i have it wrong, someone i am sure will correct me the nfln has problems with the cable companies because the cable companies will not agree to making nfln part of the basic cable package. the cable companies want to put nfln as part of their higher tier packages, thus squeezing the masses for more money for a highly desirable product. thus this is the bone of contention between the two entities.so, it seems to me that the cable companies are the "bad guys" in this whole mess. the nfl wants the most exposure as possible for their product. as for the politicians, they don't really give a crud about this issue. they just want their name in the paper and want to get behind something that 99% of the population will be on their side and remember that come november.

It's not as cut and dry as to who are the bad guys, but yes that's the short version of it. It costs the cable companies more than other basic cable channels to carry the NFLN, so wanting to put it on their sports tier isn't entirely unreasonable. A lot of sports channels aren't on basic cable. Even some channels like ESPN2 are on the basic "plus" packages, which cost slightly more than regular basic. The NFLN wants more money for their product, and they want to dictate how much companies can charge for it. They are both bad guys in my book, however I put the onus on NFLN to either drop their price or let companies charge what they want. Not everyone who gets cable wants NFLN, so what's the big deal if people who do pay an extra $5 for it along with other sports oriented programming. The irony of it is that NFLN says it wants more people to have access to it, yet by their actions they are keeping over half the cable subscribers in America from getting it.

If that's true why did they refuse binding arbitration. NFLN offered picking an arbitrator agreed to by both and adhering to what they ruled but Time Warner refused.Look at the both companies books, present both cases and NFLN said they would allow the network until the case was decided.

If you had a business, would you agree to let some 3rd party decide how you run it? That's effectively what the NFL "offered" to TW.The arbitration offer was another PR move by the NFL to try to generate more public pressure on the cable company to cave. They had discussed arbitration before the season started and the cable companies flatly refused. The NFL puts forth this "offer" to show how hard they are trying to get the station to the people, knowing full well it will be refused.

 

[ThePhillyKid]

As I've been reading more and more about this, I'm starting to see the NFL Network as nothing but a money grab for the NFL.

I mean, the majority of their programming has little to offer. Other than about 6 live games a year, and some daily sports news, there is not much reason to watch throughout the year and for the rest of the 95% of the time.

They want the cable company to pay approximately 60 - 70 cents a month, around $8 a year for every cable subscriber. You know how much money that is for a channel that currently offers so little. 10's and 10's of MILLIONS of people times $8 a year = billions of dollars.

Thats insane.

 

[Bri]

http://reed.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=289693

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200712/121907h.html

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=289227

Seth Palansky's (NFL Communications director) comments here

http://business.mainetoday.com/smallbusine...ing/018808.html

 

[tikigods]

It's a tip Kerry, GET A ####ING DISH!@

 

[nbajam]

i have no political dogs in this fight, so i will try and steer clear of that train wreck.i could have it wrong, but this is what i recall reading in an article i read a year or two ago... if i have it wrong, someone i am sure will correct me the nfln has problems with the cable companies because the cable companies will not agree to making nfln part of the basic cable package. the cable companies want to put nfln as part of their higher tier packages, thus squeezing the masses for more money for a highly desirable product. thus this is the bone of contention between the two entities.so, it seems to me that the cable companies are the "bad guys" in this whole mess. the nfl wants the most exposure as possible for their product. as for the politicians, they don't really give a crud about this issue. they just want their name in the paper and want to get behind something that 99% of the population will be on their side and remember that come november.

You have the basics right, but the reasoning ( and IMO, the conclusion ) wrong.The NFL tells you they want the NFLN on the basic cable tier so everyone can enjoy. The real reason they want it on the basic tier is that they will charge the cable companies $8/yr for every subscriber. The cable company tells you they don't want to increase the average subscribers bill by bringing specialized content to the basic tier and having to pass the costs on to everyone. The real reason they want to put it on a specialized tier is that they will limit the number of subscribers who have the channel, therefore reducing their payout for carrying the NFLN. In both cases, the corporations that are fighting DO NOT have your best interests at heart. Each corporation is trying to maximize their portion of your money that they get. In the end, from a business standpoint, I think the cable companies are "more right" in their stance. They should be free to offer the content they pay for to distribute as they see fit for their business. The NFL is demanding that every paying cable customer should pony up $8 / year, or rather that the cable company's cost for carrying the NFL network ( a channel that carries 8 NFL games, 4 months worth of replay & highlight shows, and 8 months of pretty useless fluff ) should be several hundred million dollars, and those costs will be passed on to you. A handful of people will be happy to pay for a sports tier to get the NFL network. I would wager that 80-90% of all cable subscribers won't pay for it. Cable should be free to run its business.

The real reason the cable companies want to put it on a sports tier is because then not only is the subscriber total less, but they get to charge an obscene amount of money for the channels included. $5 a month or so for channels that probably cost them no more then $2 a month to carry. I would say that the broadcast networks (NFLN and BTN for a related story) are "more right." They OWN THE CONTENT. So if they want to choose how its carried, its there own right. Carrying these channels on a basic tier of service doesn't seem to be a problem for the satellite providers and small cable companies, its only the large monopolistic cable companies.All of this argument doesn't even mention how specialized sports networks owned by cable companies are miraculously able to be carried on basic cable (see Versus and the Golf Channel for an example, both owned by Comcast) Why is this? The viewpoint is hypocritical to say the least.

 

[Dodge]

Watching the football game is not a necessity nor is it a right of being a citizen of the United States. You don't need it to live nor does not watching it hinder you in being successful or a contributing citizen. Therefore the NFL can do what ever the hell it wants to do with it's product. You fools are not entitled to anything. Get over it or get Direct TV.(I should be in Marketing.)

But having a monopolistic business model is also not a right of operating a business in the United States. Anyway, I'll be watching it on Sopcast, cause I ain't paying for their crap channel.

How is it a monopoly? You can view almost every other game for free. How many games are on NFLN? 12 out of how many per year? It's just a that you want to see this one. Too bad.

 

[fatness]

They OWN THE CONTENT. So if they want to choose how its carried, its there own right.

Well, not exactly. They don't have the right to tell network A or cable company B "you will carry it and this is what you will pay us". They do have the right to try to get as much money for it as possible, which they're doing (in a manner which is likely shortsighted). And the cable company is trying to make as much money as they can; hence the disagreement. Neither entity has NFL viewers at heart. Just dollars.

 

[money.never.sleeps]

As some have stated this whole argument is about money and I guarantee neither side will fold. And from what I hear, the cable companies will not agree to the arbitration that Roger Goodell suggested.

It comes down to either getting Direct TV or having an NFL Network affiliate that offers it on your cable. You can also watch most of the game(s) for free on your computer if you go to espn or nfl.com, click on the NFL/live.com link in the box score, and then click on the NFL/Live link on nfl.com

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Was there a thread for when the senator tried to get the GB NFL Network game on in Wisconsin? I'd be interested to compare the responses there to the ones here just because of the name attached to this one.

 

[ThePhillyKid]

Watching the football game is not a necessity nor is it a right of being a citizen of the United States. You don't need it to live nor does not watching it hinder you in being successful or a contributing citizen. Therefore the NFL can do what ever the hell it wants to do with it's product. You fools are not entitled to anything. Get over it or get Direct TV.(I should be in Marketing.)

But having a monopolistic business model is also not a right of operating a business in the United States. Anyway, I'll be watching it on Sopcast, cause I ain't paying for their crap channel.

How is it a monopoly? You can view almost every other game for free. How many games are on NFLN? 12 out of how many per year? It's just a that you want to see this one. Too bad.

I said they were operating a monopolistic business model.There are politicians who are currently trying to get the NFL's Antitrust Exemption Status overturned.

 

[56]

i have no political dogs in this fight, so i will try and steer clear of that train wreck.i could have it wrong, but this is what i recall reading in an article i read a year or two ago... if i have it wrong, someone i am sure will correct me the nfln has problems with the cable companies because the cable companies will not agree to making nfln part of the basic cable package. the cable companies want to put nfln as part of their higher tier packages, thus squeezing the masses for more money for a highly desirable product. thus this is the bone of contention between the two entities.so, it seems to me that the cable companies are the "bad guys" in this whole mess. the nfl wants the most exposure as possible for their product. as for the politicians, they don't really give a crud about this issue. they just want their name in the paper and want to get behind something that 99% of the population will be on their side and remember that come november.

It's not as cut and dry as to who are the bad guys, but yes that's the short version of it. It costs the cable companies more than other basic cable channels to carry the NFLN, so wanting to put it on their sports tier isn't entirely unreasonable. A lot of sports channels aren't on basic cable. Even some channels like ESPN2 are on the basic "plus" packages, which cost slightly more than regular basic. The NFLN wants more money for their product, and they want to dictate how much companies can charge for it. They are both bad guys in my book, however I put the onus on NFLN to either drop their price or let companies charge what they want. Not everyone who gets cable wants NFLN, so what's the big deal if people who do pay an extra $5 for it along with other sports oriented programming. The irony of it is that NFLN says it wants more people to have access to it, yet by their actions they are keeping over half the cable subscribers in America from getting it.

If that's true why did they refuse binding arbitration. NFLN offered picking an arbitrator agreed to by both and adhering to what they ruled but Time Warner refused.Look at the both companies books, present both cases and NFLN said they would allow the network until the case was decided.

Well for one, why should they agree to arbitration so someone can tell them how much to charge for their services? How many of the hundreds of channels in existence had to go to arbitration to figure out how much TW can charge for their own broadcasting service?I don't know all the details about the arbitration, but it seems to me to be a PR deal by the NFLN to try and say We Tried right before most of the cable households in MASS and the country in general can't watch the game. Why didn't the NFLN offer arbitration before the season started? Why now at the end of the season, before the last game? They're doing it now because it's a PR nightmare for a history making game to be unavailable for so many fans. I don't think either one of these sides is "the good guy" in this mess. I'll never stick up for a telecom giant as being unfairly picked on. And I think the NFL is butting their heads into a business point that is none of their business.

I'm pretty sure that the NFL does not consider this situation to be a PR nightmare in any way, shape or form. In fact, to have this potentially historic game be on their own network, on the last week of the season, is nothing short of a marketing home run for them.

 

[mad sweeney]

i have no political dogs in this fight, so i will try and steer clear of that train wreck.i could have it wrong, but this is what i recall reading in an article i read a year or two ago... if i have it wrong, someone i am sure will correct me the nfln has problems with the cable companies because the cable companies will not agree to making nfln part of the basic cable package. the cable companies want to put nfln as part of their higher tier packages, thus squeezing the masses for more money for a highly desirable product. thus this is the bone of contention between the two entities.so, it seems to me that the cable companies are the "bad guys" in this whole mess. the nfl wants the most exposure as possible for their product. as for the politicians, they don't really give a crud about this issue. they just want their name in the paper and want to get behind something that 99% of the population will be on their side and remember that come november.

It's not as cut and dry as to who are the bad guys, but yes that's the short version of it. It costs the cable companies more than other basic cable channels to carry the NFLN, so wanting to put it on their sports tier isn't entirely unreasonable. A lot of sports channels aren't on basic cable. Even some channels like ESPN2 are on the basic "plus" packages, which cost slightly more than regular basic. The NFLN wants more money for their product, and they want to dictate how much companies can charge for it. They are both bad guys in my book, however I put the onus on NFLN to either drop their price or let companies charge what they want. Not everyone who gets cable wants NFLN, so what's the big deal if people who do pay an extra $5 for it along with other sports oriented programming. The irony of it is that NFLN says it wants more people to have access to it, yet by their actions they are keeping over half the cable subscribers in America from getting it.

If that's true why did they refuse binding arbitration. NFLN offered picking an arbitrator agreed to by both and adhering to what they ruled but Time Warner refused.Look at the both companies books, present both cases and NFLN said they would allow the network until the case was decided.

Well for one, why should they agree to arbitration so someone can tell them how much to charge for their services? How many of the hundreds of channels in existence had to go to arbitration to figure out how much TW can charge for their own broadcasting service?I don't know all the details about the arbitration, but it seems to me to be a PR deal by the NFLN to try and say We Tried right before most of the cable households in MASS and the country in general can't watch the game. Why didn't the NFLN offer arbitration before the season started? Why now at the end of the season, before the last game? They're doing it now because it's a PR nightmare for a history making game to be unavailable for so many fans. I don't think either one of these sides is "the good guy" in this mess. I'll never stick up for a telecom giant as being unfairly picked on. And I think the NFL is butting their heads into a business point that is none of their business.

I'm pretty sure that the NFL does not consider this situation to be a PR nightmare in any way, shape or form. In fact, to have this potentially historic game be on their own network, on the last week of the season, is nothing short of a marketing home run for them.

When you can only reach 40% (or whatever the % is) of your targetted audience, your money per commercial spot goes down. If this game was reaching everybody that wanted it, their ad revenue would be through the roof. As it is, the biggest regualr season game in 35 years is going to be only a so-so money maker for the network because they aren't reaching even half of their intended audience. Very far from a home run. More like a bunt. It SHOULD be the jewel in their crown, but instead it's causing more controversy than hype. How can you sell ad space to penny pinching advertisers with a built in 60% of viewers not even able to watch? They'll lose tons of money compared to what they'd make with TW on board.And yes they do consider it a PR nightmare because they have New Englanders not near enough to Boston up in arms, along with football fans in general, and at least 3 Congressman subtley threatening to look into their exempt status. That's why they did the big arbitration announcement that they knew would be rejected to try and put a good face on it. What should be their biggest triumph is going to be their biggest flap.

 

[56]

i have no political dogs in this fight, so i will try and steer clear of that train wreck.i could have it wrong, but this is what i recall reading in an article i read a year or two ago... if i have it wrong, someone i am sure will correct me the nfln has problems with the cable companies because the cable companies will not agree to making nfln part of the basic cable package. the cable companies want to put nfln as part of their higher tier packages, thus squeezing the masses for more money for a highly desirable product. thus this is the bone of contention between the two entities.so, it seems to me that the cable companies are the "bad guys" in this whole mess. the nfl wants the most exposure as possible for their product. as for the politicians, they don't really give a crud about this issue. they just want their name in the paper and want to get behind something that 99% of the population will be on their side and remember that come november.

It's not as cut and dry as to who are the bad guys, but yes that's the short version of it. It costs the cable companies more than other basic cable channels to carry the NFLN, so wanting to put it on their sports tier isn't entirely unreasonable. A lot of sports channels aren't on basic cable. Even some channels like ESPN2 are on the basic "plus" packages, which cost slightly more than regular basic. The NFLN wants more money for their product, and they want to dictate how much companies can charge for it. They are both bad guys in my book, however I put the onus on NFLN to either drop their price or let companies charge what they want. Not everyone who gets cable wants NFLN, so what's the big deal if people who do pay an extra $5 for it along with other sports oriented programming. The irony of it is that NFLN says it wants more people to have access to it, yet by their actions they are keeping over half the cable subscribers in America from getting it.

If that's true why did they refuse binding arbitration. NFLN offered picking an arbitrator agreed to by both and adhering to what they ruled but Time Warner refused.Look at the both companies books, present both cases and NFLN said they would allow the network until the case was decided.

Well for one, why should they agree to arbitration so someone can tell them how much to charge for their services? How many of the hundreds of channels in existence had to go to arbitration to figure out how much TW can charge for their own broadcasting service?I don't know all the details about the arbitration, but it seems to me to be a PR deal by the NFLN to try and say We Tried right before most of the cable households in MASS and the country in general can't watch the game. Why didn't the NFLN offer arbitration before the season started? Why now at the end of the season, before the last game? They're doing it now because it's a PR nightmare for a history making game to be unavailable for so many fans. I don't think either one of these sides is "the good guy" in this mess. I'll never stick up for a telecom giant as being unfairly picked on. And I think the NFL is butting their heads into a business point that is none of their business.

I'm pretty sure that the NFL does not consider this situation to be a PR nightmare in any way, shape or form. In fact, to have this potentially historic game be on their own network, on the last week of the season, is nothing short of a marketing home run for them.

When you can only reach 40% (or whatever the % is) of your targetted audience, your money per commercial spot goes down. If this game was reaching everybody that wanted it, their ad revenue would be through the roof. As it is, the biggest regualr season game in 35 years is going to be only a so-so money maker for the network because they aren't reaching even half of their intended audience. Very far from a home run. More like a bunt. It SHOULD be the jewel in their crown, but instead it's causing more controversy than hype. How can you sell ad space to penny pinching advertisers with a built in 60% of viewers not even able to watch? They'll lose tons of money compared to what they'd make with TW on board.And yes they do consider it a PR nightmare because they have New Englanders not near enough to Boston up in arms, along with football fans in general, and at least 3 Congressman subtley threatening to look into their exempt status. That's why they did the big arbitration announcement that they knew would be rejected to try and put a good face on it. What should be their biggest triumph is going to be their biggest flap.

In terms of viewers, the scenario you paint is best case. But best case was not initially going to be in the cards for the NFL Network, and the NFL knew it. Given the animosity that exists between the NFL and cable companies due to the Sunday Ticket, I am pretty sure that this resistance by the cable companies was not only anticipated but was planned for. In light of that friction, I'd say having the biggest regular season game in decades wind up on their network, and all the publicity generated by shut out viewers, is very much a marketing home run. As to the fact that 3 Congressman have been/are stroking their respective constituencies over this issue is also something that the league certainly anticipated, and it won't even make them flinch. The reason is that the NFL knows that what they are doing with their network the exact same thing that CNN, ESPN and so on do with their networks. The NFL is asking for the same kind of deals that the most of the standard basic cable entities demand, the difference here is that cable operators don't take out full page ads to tell you that HGTV want 60 cents per month per subscriber and insist on being only on basic.

 

[Road Warriors]

i have no political dogs in this fight, so i will try and steer clear of that train wreck.i could have it wrong, but this is what i recall reading in an article i read a year or two ago... if i have it wrong, someone i am sure will correct me the nfln has problems with the cable companies because the cable companies will not agree to making nfln part of the basic cable package. the cable companies want to put nfln as part of their higher tier packages, thus squeezing the masses for more money for a highly desirable product. thus this is the bone of contention between the two entities.so, it seems to me that the cable companies are the "bad guys" in this whole mess. the nfl wants the most exposure as possible for their product. as for the politicians, they don't really give a crud about this issue. they just want their name in the paper and want to get behind something that 99% of the population will be on their side and remember that come november.

It's not as cut and dry as to who are the bad guys, but yes that's the short version of it. It costs the cable companies more than other basic cable channels to carry the NFLN, so wanting to put it on their sports tier isn't entirely unreasonable. A lot of sports channels aren't on basic cable. Even some channels like ESPN2 are on the basic "plus" packages, which cost slightly more than regular basic. The NFLN wants more money for their product, and they want to dictate how much companies can charge for it. They are both bad guys in my book, however I put the onus on NFLN to either drop their price or let companies charge what they want. Not everyone who gets cable wants NFLN, so what's the big deal if people who do pay an extra $5 for it along with other sports oriented programming. The irony of it is that NFLN says it wants more people to have access to it, yet by their actions they are keeping over half the cable subscribers in America from getting it.

If that's true why did they refuse binding arbitration. NFLN offered picking an arbitrator agreed to by both and adhering to what they ruled but Time Warner refused.Look at the both companies books, present both cases and NFLN said they would allow the network until the case was decided.

Well for one, why should they agree to arbitration so someone can tell them how much to charge for their services? How many of the hundreds of channels in existence had to go to arbitration to figure out how much TW can charge for their own broadcasting service?I don't know all the details about the arbitration, but it seems to me to be a PR deal by the NFLN to try and say We Tried right before most of the cable households in MASS and the country in general can't watch the game. Why didn't the NFLN offer arbitration before the season started? Why now at the end of the season, before the last game? They're doing it now because it's a PR nightmare for a history making game to be unavailable for so many fans. I don't think either one of these sides is "the good guy" in this mess. I'll never stick up for a telecom giant as being unfairly picked on. And I think the NFL is butting their heads into a business point that is none of their business.

I'm pretty sure that the NFL does not consider this situation to be a PR nightmare in any way, shape or form. In fact, to have this potentially historic game be on their own network, on the last week of the season, is nothing short of a marketing home run for them.

When you can only reach 40% (or whatever the % is) of your targetted audience, your money per commercial spot goes down. If this game was reaching everybody that wanted it, their ad revenue would be through the roof. As it is, the biggest regualr season game in 35 years is going to be only a so-so money maker for the network because they aren't reaching even half of their intended audience. Very far from a home run. More like a bunt. It SHOULD be the jewel in their crown, but instead it's causing more controversy than hype. How can you sell ad space to penny pinching advertisers with a built in 60% of viewers not even able to watch? They'll lose tons of money compared to what they'd make with TW on board.And yes they do consider it a PR nightmare because they have New Englanders not near enough to Boston up in arms, along with football fans in general, and at least 3 Congressman subtley threatening to look into their exempt status. That's why they did the big arbitration announcement that they knew would be rejected to try and put a good face on it. What should be their biggest triumph is going to be their biggest flap.

In terms of viewers, the scenario you paint is best case. But best case was not initially going to be in the cards for the NFL Network, and the NFL knew it. Given the animosity that exists between the NFL and cable companies due to the Sunday Ticket, I am pretty sure that this resistance by the cable companies was not only anticipated but was planned for. In light of that friction, I'd say having the biggest regular season game in decades wind up on their network, and all the publicity generated by shut out viewers, is very much a marketing home run. As to the fact that 3 Congressman have been/are stroking their respective constituencies over this issue is also something that the league certainly anticipated, and it won't even make them flinch. The reason is that the NFL knows that what they are doing with their network the exact same thing that CNN, ESPN and so on do with their networks. The NFL is asking for the same kind of deals that the most of the standard basic cable entities demand, the difference here is that cable operators don't take out full page ads to tell you that HGTV want 60 cents per month per subscriber and insist on being only on basic.

And HGTV isn't taking out full page ads telling cable customers to switch to DISH so they can get it. Think about CNN or ESPN. Do they offer relevant content ( even if its not your bag ) year long? Now think about the NFL network. How relevant is their content from February thru July? This is a niche channel with a vocal following that is trying to cash in. Granted, the cable guys are just as bad, looking to over charge a handful of customers for this content, pay pennies on the dollar they collect, then run up additional local ad revenues on the spots they keep for themselves in the programming. I don't know who's right or wrong. I just know that once this is all worked out, I'll end up paying more than I am now for my cable bill, the NFL owners will still be really rich, and the cable companies will still suck.