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

[Knight who says Ni]

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

He was in Lambert field, naturallyNi

 

[ThePhillyKid]

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.

 

[Toons]

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

He was in Lambert field, naturallyNi

Classic...

 

[redman]

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.

How'd you know about my car?

 

[PMENFAN]

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).

Nobody is asking for it for free. I pay $140 month for Time Warner. I pay for plenty of channels that I never watch. It's a matter of tTWC holding consumers hostage to get a better price from the NFL. Reality is NFL games are top rated week in and out. It's why the league demands a premium. TWC, et al, realize they can charge the premium. It comes down to the reality of who deserves the profit? The NFL wants to charge $1/ year set. TWC wants to charge us $10/ month for the same content. I'd say NFL's Deal is pretty fair, compared to what TWC wants to make. It sucks to miss so many games, but at the end of the day, I see the NFL as right, and protecting fans interests in the long run. As for the guy who said move. Maybe you're a fresh, high school, capitalist? Cable companies dominate tthe region they're in, and are the only carriers of the local channels. Moving doesn't get me the local channels. And, besides, why should I eat up $15k in the equity of my home (realtor fees, closing costs) so TWC can continue their bullying tactics?

 

[pizzatyme]

To the "Millions" of Pats fans across the country who won't be able to see it, too bad. I have DTV and the NFL network and I'll probably watch the 1st Q, then flip over to the Big Ten Network and catch a game.

Quit your whining **tches, and get a dish.

 

[Blueb]

Its honestly not such a big deal. Just buy the NFL Network and cancel it next week. One month with the network costs about $8. So this is a $8 dollar decision. Thats it. Nothing at all to a Pats fan that wants to see their team go undefeated (in what will likely by a crappy football game against the NYG backups, but thats neither here nor there).

IF you want the network for the entire months of November and December (the only two months with Thurs. and Sat. night football) then its a $16 decision. There are Pay Per View events that last 3 minutes that are 4 times the cost as the 12 or so football games you'll get for those $16.

 

[LBH]

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

LOL at people being against that.

I cant believe people are ripping him. Im all for being able to see the games on NFL network, and it drives me crazy that I cant. I couldnt care less about Kerrys motives, Im just glad that hes putting pressure on the NFL to make the network more flexible/available

 

[Big Score]

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.

 

[The Great Snook]

John Kerry hasn't made an impact in the Senate and he has been there since 1985. Too expect anything other than failure is silly.

 

[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.

I cant believe people are ripping him. Im all for being able to see the games on NFL network, and it drives me crazy that I cant. I couldnt care less about Kerrys motives, Im just glad that hes putting pressure on the NFL to make the network more flexible/available

While we're at it, LOL at all the anti-consumer attitudes among consumers, too. "They have the right to charge whatever they want", "stockholders demand a high return", and the talk of cable "tiers" as if they contain any advantage for customers. Real NFL fans just want to see NFL football, and want as many people to see it as possible. Five years from now a message will appear on your screen after every quarter saying "to continue viewing please punch in the access code and your account will be billed $$ for the next quarter" and people will stick up for that, too. "It is their product!" "If you don't like it, move!" "If you would like to see the conclusion of this fantastic run by LaDanian Tomlinson, please enter your credit card number now."