Vermont not part of New England (1 Viewer)

[ConstruxBoy]

I live in NC, and I can't see the Panthers vs Dallas game tonight on regular tv. It is being shown on NBC, in the 22 county Charlotte television market. I live an hour away from Charlotte, and my county, which is a big one, can't see the game. My grandmother who lives in a small county, and in a town as big as mayberry, can watch it on regular tv.

Then you should be mad at the NFL for putting the game on NFL Network. This map (link) is a good place to see the size of local markets. The five teams that had a home early game on CBS and thus couldn't show the early FOX game were NE, PIT, CLE, KC and MIA.

FWIW - It looks like some of the NE blackout extends into Vermont. But it's certainly not the whole NE area.

click on any previous week's link and look for a Pats game and the NE area

I think you're missing my point. The NFL defined zone for blackouts, either due to non-sellout or to non-compete, is shown on that map. So if only local areas get a game because of NFLN, it's going to be that same area. Just because Myrtle Beach sees the Panthers every week, it doesn't mean they're in the local area and should see this game on NBC. If this makes you and others realize that the primary villian in this situation is the NFL, not cable, then that would be great.

 

[ThePhillyKid]

or stream it online.

Yep, everyone go get sopcast quality isn't always great, but it's good enough

 

[jgb95]

worst thread ever

 

[Bri]

Some people in this thread might want to read the NFL Blackout Rules to see what a home market is really defined as.

A home market is 75 miles around the stadium and all TV stations within that radius.

Since Pats games never get blacked out I bet NE fans are unaware of the rules (but older Pats fans will know).

What about this part of the rule?

For other games, no station within 75 miles of an NFL stadium may broadcast a game unless it has an affiliation deal with one of the local teams involved.

WCAX in Vermont broadcasts every game, food drives around the holiday, fan of the year contest, tickets giveaways, etc. How is that NOT an affiliation?

 

[Bri]

Robert Kraft once tried to move the team to Connecticut and considerred that New England.

 

[the_Truth]

Some people in this thread might want to read the NFL Blackout Rules to see what a home market is really defined as.

A home market is 75 miles around the stadium and all TV stations within that radius.

Since Pats games never get blacked out I bet NE fans are unaware of the rules (but older Pats fans will know).

What about this part of the rule?

For other games, no station within 75 miles of an NFL stadium may broadcast a game unless it has an affiliation deal with one of the local teams involved.

WCAX in Vermont broadcasts every game, food drives around the holiday, fan of the year contest, tickets giveaways, etc. How is that NOT an affiliation?

That sentence comes from a paragraph entitled, "NFL Blackout Policy." Good job 1. Citing wikipedia and 2. Managing to quote out of context, the same crime for which you accused Christo of either, even though his quote of you retained its original meaning.That link was intended to help you understand what a home market is, it really doesn't have much to do with games on the NFLN.

I seriously can't tell if you are trolling this thread or if you really are the densest person I've ever encountered.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

So let's review:

If the cable companies get what they want, they will package NFL Network in combo upgrade packages including The Gardening Network, Biker Network, and Womens Undergarment Shopping Channel and charge $39.95 per month.

If the NFL gets what it wants, EVERYONE gets NFL Network with basic cable BUT the cable companies must pay NFL $1 per subscriber.

In the battle of greed, I hate the NFL LESS than I hate the cable companies.

Odds that Senator Leahy is in the back pocket of cable companies?

[/rant]

ETA: I'm in Jacksonville with NFL NETWORK so I'm watching the game at home, as opposed to the schmos that have to don snow shoes and hike it over to Sammy's Pub in Montpelier.

 

[Team Tosh]

So let's review:

If the cable companies get what they want, they will package NFL Network in combo upgrade packages including The Gardening Network, Biker Network, and Womens Undergarment Shopping Channel and charge $39.95 per month.

If the NFL gets what it wants, EVERYONE gets NFL Network with basic cable BUT the cable companies must pay NFL $1 per subscriber.

In the battle of greed, I hate the NFL LESS than I hate the cable companies.

Odds that Senator Leahy is in the back pocket of cable companies?

[/rant]

ETA: I'm in Jacksonville with NFL NETWORK so I'm watching the game at home, as opposed to the schmos that have to don snow shoes and hike it over to Sammy's Pub in Montpelier.

This is why I think the cable company is to blame:I have even less than basic cable - pretty much just the local channels and five religious and shopping channels. I am paying $17 per month just so I can get some reception on my TV as I don't live in a major city nor do I watch that much TV. Last year, I did have basic but decided to downgrad my service after the football season because it would cost me an additional $40 per month just to have basic cable and after the football season, ESPN just isn't worth it.

I have read numerous times that the cable companies want to put it on a special tier because in order to bundle it with basic, they would have to charge an additional $1 per subscriber and they don't think that's fair to make everyone pay for a channel only a few people watch (Hello, what is the Oxygen channel?). So I figure I will just keep the local channels until they figure this all out.

Then last month, I get a notice saying that due to the improved quality in the programming, they are going to be charging me an additional $3 per month. So now I'm paying $20 per month for basically 6 network channels and five regious and shopping network channels. They didn't even add any chanels for the increase in their charges.

So they don't have the heart to charge and additional $1 per month for a channel that millions would watch, but they have the nerve to charge another $3 per month for no additional programming? It's all about greed and from my perspective it isn't the NFL that's the greedy one. They may be one of the few organizations powerful enough to not have to back down to the cable companies. While I hate not being able to watch some of those games from home, a scenario I don't want to see is where the NFL gives in to the cable company.

I read an article earlier this year talking about how many subscibers the cable companies in Wisconsin were losing this past fall and everyone but the cable companies thought it had to do with satellite dishes offering the NFLN and Big Ten Networks. Article

 

[Topes]

What about the folks in Cleveland, Tennessee, who don't get to see all the Browns games?

Nobody ever sticks up for them.

 

[Bri]

Some people in this thread might want to read the NFL Blackout Rules to see what a home market is really defined as.

A home market is 75 miles around the stadium and all TV stations within that radius.

Since Pats games never get blacked out I bet NE fans are unaware of the rules (but older Pats fans will know).

What about this part of the rule?

For other games, no station within 75 miles of an NFL stadium may broadcast a game unless it has an affiliation deal with one of the local teams involved.

WCAX in Vermont broadcasts every game, food drives around the holiday, fan of the year contest, tickets giveaways, etc. How is that NOT an affiliation?

That sentence comes from a paragraph entitled, "NFL Blackout Policy." Good job 1. Citing wikipedia and 2. Managing to quote out of context, the same crime for which you accused Christo of either, even though his quote of you retained its original meaning.That link was intended to help you understand what a home market is, it really doesn't have much to do with games on the NFLN.

I seriously can't tell if you are trolling this thread or if you really are the densest person I've ever encountered.

I didn't post the source but replied to a post using that source. I clearly asked a question as well, wherein I pointed out it was part and not the whole

 

[Tom Servo]

The NFL restricts the availability of its product and controls its distribution (as is its right) in order to increase demand and the OP is upset about it.

No, there aren't a couple of anti-capitalists in this thread...

 

[apalmer]

dude, you have me totally confused.

you are #####ing that the NEW YORK football giants shouldn't be shown in new york, while you are advocating that the NEW ENGLAND patriots need to be shown throughout new england?

this entire thread is trolling, isn't it?

I think it's quite entertaining. Bri wants to say that the entire New England area is entitled to see the Pats just because they're called the New England Patriots, but he doesn't have the guts to do it.

Wha?The Entire New England area is entitled to see the Pats because they're call the New England Patriots

Feel better?

Also because they have been shown the Pats games here for years and years. I am not asking that they put the game on special for NE fans but that they continue to do it as they have for a long time.

I knew it So if Jerry Jones changed the name of the Cowboys to The North Texas and Oklahoma Cowboys he'd be entitled to get the games broadcast there as well?

Considering the history of their name, I think the U.S. Steelers has a nice ring to it. National broadcasts every week, baby!

 

[Bri]

The NFL restricts the availability of its product and controls its distribution (as is its right) in order to increase demand and the OP is upset about it.No, there aren't a couple of anti-capitalists in this thread...

The NFL hasn't chosen to restrict the availability to Vermont for what seems like 36 years(1971 I think, not an easy thing to search for another link looks like it might be 1978....a long time nonetheless). In all that time, VT was blacked out if the Pats didn't sell out, just like the Massachusetts area. If not, Vermont was shown the game free just like the Massachusetts area. Week 17 will be the first time that's not the case.

 

[Bri]

dude, you have me totally confused.

you are #####ing that the NEW YORK football giants shouldn't be shown in new york, while you are advocating that the NEW ENGLAND patriots need to be shown throughout new england?

this entire thread is trolling, isn't it?

I think it's quite entertaining. Bri wants to say that the entire New England area is entitled to see the Pats just because they're called the New England Patriots, but he doesn't have the guts to do it.

Wha?The Entire New England area is entitled to see the Pats because they're call the New England Patriots

Feel better?

Also because they have been shown the Pats games here for years and years. I am not asking that they put the game on special for NE fans but that they continue to do it as they have for a long time.

I knew it So if Jerry Jones changed the name of the Cowboys to The North Texas and Oklahoma Cowboys he'd be entitled to get the games broadcast there as well?

Considering the history of their name, I think the U.S. Steelers has a nice ring to it. National broadcasts every week, baby!

The US wasn't shown Steelers games every single week for years and years, that's the difference here.

 

[apalmer]

dude, you have me totally confused.

you are #####ing that the NEW YORK football giants shouldn't be shown in new york, while you are advocating that the NEW ENGLAND patriots need to be shown throughout new england?

this entire thread is trolling, isn't it?

I think it's quite entertaining. Bri wants to say that the entire New England area is entitled to see the Pats just because they're called the New England Patriots, but he doesn't have the guts to do it.

Wha?The Entire New England area is entitled to see the Pats because they're call the New England Patriots

Feel better?

Also because they have been shown the Pats games here for years and years. I am not asking that they put the game on special for NE fans but that they continue to do it as they have for a long time.

I knew it So if Jerry Jones changed the name of the Cowboys to The North Texas and Oklahoma Cowboys he'd be entitled to get the games broadcast there as well?

Considering the history of their name, I think the U.S. Steelers has a nice ring to it. National broadcasts every week, baby!

The US wasn't shown Steelers games every single week for years and years, that's the difference here.

But that was before the Steelers' name change.

 

[Tom Servo]

The NFL restricts the availability of its product and controls its distribution (as is its right) in order to increase demand and the OP is upset about it.

No, there aren't a couple of anti-capitalists in this thread...

The NFL hasn't chosen to restrict the availability to Vermont for what seems like 36 years(1971 I think, not an easy thing to search for another link looks like it might be 1978....a long time nonetheless). In all that time, VT was blacked out if the Pats didn't sell out, just like the Massachusetts area. If not, Vermont was shown the game free just like the Massachusetts area. Week 17 will be the first time that's not the case.

So, since they haven't blacked out Vermont since old Clyde died, they're never allowed to do it again? Again, if the NFL wants to determine who does and who does not get their games, that is THEIR right, not yours. They provide the service; you use it or don't use it at your discretion.Just tryin' to be of assistance; no hate intended...it's too close to Christmas, anyways.

 

[eom]

So, since they haven't blacked out Vermont since old Clyde died, they're never allowed to do it again? Again, if the NFL wants to determine who does and who does not get their games, that is THEIR right, not yours. They provide the service; you use it or don't use it at your discretion.Just tryin' to be of assistance; no hate intended...it's too close to Christmas, anyways.

that is certainly true, and why I'm posting again in this thread I have no idea, but you could also make the argument that the nfl is abusing it's antitrust exemption.

 

[MarshallRob]

The NFL restricts the availability of its product and controls its distribution (as is its right) in order to increase demand and the OP is upset about it.No, there aren't a couple of anti-capitalists in this thread...

Why would capitalists need an anti-trust exemption?

 

[Bri]

The NFL restricts the availability of its product and controls its distribution (as is its right) in order to increase demand and the OP is upset about it.

No, there aren't a couple of anti-capitalists in this thread...

The NFL hasn't chosen to restrict the availability to Vermont for what seems like 36 years(1971 I think, not an easy thing to search for another link looks like it might be 1978....a long time nonetheless). In all that time, VT was blacked out if the Pats didn't sell out, just like the Massachusetts area. If not, Vermont was shown the game free just like the Massachusetts area. Week 17 will be the first time that's not the case.

So, since they haven't blacked out Vermont since old Clyde died, they're never allowed to do it again? Again, if the NFL wants to determine who does and who does not get their games, that is THEIR right, not yours. They provide the service; you use it or don't use it at your discretion.Just tryin' to be of assistance; no hate intended...it's too close to Christmas, anyways.

It is as if they pulled the rug out from under alot of fans of one team. That is why I guess Leahy, Kerry and a few other Congressmen got involved in contacting Goodell. One guy on the radio said it was like they moved the team.

Cable may likely be involved here in the background but this issue is about it being offerred free on regular TV for so long and suddenly changed. One thing about some rural parts of the NE area is some don't even have cable available, it's not like those people have a choice and can pop on NFLN. I would guess the NFL wants to show cable companies (for future debate) what happens if they puff their chest out. Like many fans in the NE area, I'm not pleased about being made an example of IF this is what they're up to. It's hard to decipher what the NFL is doing here in regards to their cable negotiations since this is normally a free game on a major network.

I do recall reading that the NFL offerred TimeWarner to go to an arbitrator and IIRC there was a thread here on that too. They didn't give them much time, it was go before an arbitrator by this day. I think the day that offer ran out is when they pulled this move but I'm not certain.

 

[Yenrub]

Not sure if this was addressed before this post but..

What happens or has happened in Vermont when the Patriots played on ESPN?

Not everyone has cable are those game shown on regular over the air TV as well?

 

[phthalatemagic]

I don't think Goddell cares about pissing off about 100 people and a forest of maple trees.

 

[Road Warriors]

The NFL restricts the availability of its product and controls its distribution (as is its right) in order to increase demand and the OP is upset about it.No, there aren't a couple of anti-capitalists in this thread...

But they do so with the protection of an Anti Trust exemption from the government. A large part of the capitalist concepts is that under competition, the market will sort itself out. The NFL has a monopoly on a product ( professional football ) but is granted exclusion from government regulation under anti trust laws. When the NFL tries to use that monopoly to its own gain, it abuses the exemption they've operated so successfully under for years.I would expect that a bit more sabre rattling from the government fronts will bring this particular issue to a close. The NFL does not want the US government poking its nose into its business practices.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

The NFL restricts the availability of its product and controls its distribution (as is its right) in order to increase demand and the OP is upset about it.

No, there aren't a couple of anti-capitalists in this thread...

http://www.fred08.com/splash.aspx

Good luck with that whole Ronnie Raygun 2.0 presidency thing, you've got going there.

Look at you, going all Gordon Gecko...."Greed is good!!!"



According to you, the NFL has no right to ask for $1 for its product. According to you, it's perfectly fine if Time Warner wants to lump NFL network with The Handbags Shopping Channel and charge $30 for it, but it's a travesty for the NFL to demand $1.



I'm gonna go back to watching Jon Stewart now; thanks.

 

[Road Warriors]

So let's review:

If the cable companies get what they want, they will package NFL Network in combo upgrade packages including The Gardening Network, Biker Network, and Womens Undergarment Shopping Channel and charge $39.95 per month.

If the NFL gets what it wants, EVERYONE gets NFL Network with basic cable BUT the cable companies must pay NFL $1 per subscriber.

In the battle of greed, I hate the NFL LESS than I hate the cable companies.

Odds that Senator Leahy is in the back pocket of cable companies?

[/rant]

ETA: I'm in Jacksonville with NFL NETWORK so I'm watching the game at home, as opposed to the schmos that have to don snow shoes and hike it over to Sammy's Pub in Montpelier.

This is why I think the cable company is to blame:I have even less than basic cable - pretty much just the local channels and five religious and shopping channels. I am paying $17 per month just so I can get some reception on my TV as I don't live in a major city nor do I watch that much TV. Last year, I did have basic but decided to downgrad my service after the football season because it would cost me an additional $40 per month just to have basic cable and after the football season, ESPN just isn't worth it.

I have read numerous times that the cable companies want to put it on a special tier because in order to bundle it with basic, they would have to charge an additional $1 per subscriber and they don't think that's fair to make everyone pay for a channel only a few people watch (Hello, what is the Oxygen channel?). So I figure I will just keep the local channels until they figure this all out.

Then last month, I get a notice saying that due to the improved quality in the programming, they are going to be charging me an additional $3 per month. So now I'm paying $20 per month for basically 6 network channels and five regious and shopping network channels. They didn't even add any chanels for the increase in their charges.

So they don't have the heart to charge and additional $1 per month for a channel that millions would watch, but they have the nerve to charge another $3 per month for no additional programming? It's all about greed and from my perspective it isn't the NFL that's the greedy one. They may be one of the few organizations powerful enough to not have to back down to the cable companies. While I hate not being able to watch some of those games from home, a scenario I don't want to see is where the NFL gives in to the cable company.

I read an article earlier this year talking about how many subscibers the cable companies in Wisconsin were losing this past fall and everyone but the cable companies thought it had to do with satellite dishes offering the NFLN and Big Ten Networks. Article

I agree with you 100% about the cable companies pricing and value proposition...however, I disagree with your conclusion.Here's why I think you've missed the bigger picture.

NFL PR line:

Cable wants to charge you ( the consumer ) more and put it on a special tier. The NFL is looking out for the consumer in trying to bring you the product for a fair price.

NFL truth:

Cable wants to put the product on a sports tier and pay our $8.00 / year / subscriber costs for the channel for approximately 10-20% of the total subscribers. We want to collect our $8 per year for every cable subscriber in America.

Cable PR line:

The NFL network has appeal to a subset of our customers, and we don't feel right having to charge $1 more to every customer for a product they don't really want. By putting it on a sports tier, the true sports fans can have access to the channel while we (the cable co. ) can protect our wider subscriber base.

Cable truth:

By limiting the NFL network to a sports tier, we can charge a premium for the sports package, and greatly reduce ( ~80% less ) our payout for the NFL content by limiting the number of subscribers. The fact that we constantly package channels that NOBODY cares about in our basic package is irrelevant, because we own those channels, so we don't have to pay out for them, although we can incrementally charge our subscribers for the 15 shopping channels.

Don't buy into the PR lines of either of these organizations. You can decide for yourself which greedy, multi-billion dollar corporation you side with, but understand that the entire battle is over how these 2 can split your money. In either case, you'll be paying.

Just some cheerful thoughts on this pre-christmas week 16 sunday.

 

[Topes]

Not sure if this was addressed before this post but..What happens or has happened in Vermont when the Patriots played on ESPN?Not everyone has cable are those game shown on regular over the air TV as well?

 

[thehornet]

LOOK AT ME! IM A VERMONT PATS FAN!

 

[meanjoegreen]

I don't see this as being a historic game. I doubt the Giants even play all of their starters. They have locked up a wildcard spot now, and I doubt they want to take a chance with their starters getting hurt, since their playoffs start the following week.

 

[dparker713]

The NFL restricts the availability of its product and controls its distribution (as is its right) in order to increase demand and the OP is upset about it.

No, there aren't a couple of anti-capitalists in this thread...

The NFL hasn't chosen to restrict the availability to Vermont for what seems like 36 years(1971 I think, not an easy thing to search for another link looks like it might be 1978....a long time nonetheless). In all that time, VT was blacked out if the Pats didn't sell out, just like the Massachusetts area. If not, Vermont was shown the game free just like the Massachusetts area. Week 17 will be the first time that's not the case.

So, since they haven't blacked out Vermont since old Clyde died, they're never allowed to do it again? Again, if the NFL wants to determine who does and who does not get their games, that is THEIR right, not yours. They provide the service; you use it or don't use it at your discretion.Just tryin' to be of assistance; no hate intended...it's too close to Christmas, anyways.

It is as if they pulled the rug out from under alot of fans of one team. That is why I guess Leahy, Kerry and a few other Congressmen got involved in contacting Goodell. One guy on the radio said it was like they moved the team.

Cable may likely be involved here in the background but this issue is about it being offerred free on regular TV for so long and suddenly changed. One thing about some rural parts of the NE area is some don't even have cable available, it's not like those people have a choice and can pop on NFLN. I would guess the NFL wants to show cable companies (for future debate) what happens if they puff their chest out. Like many fans in the NE area, I'm not pleased about being made an example of IF this is what they're up to. It's hard to decipher what the NFL is doing here in regards to their cable negotiations since this is normally a free game on a major network.

I do recall reading that the NFL offerred TimeWarner to go to an arbitrator and IIRC there was a thread here on that too. They didn't give them much time, it was go before an arbitrator by this day. I think the day that offer ran out is when they pulled this move but I'm not certain.

Believe it or not, NE fans are not special. Everyone has been treated the same way by the NFLN broadcasts. You're the one asking for special treatment, even though other fans have had to deal with this for the past couple of years.This thread is yet another example of why to hate NE fans.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

I thought Vermont was part of Canada.

 

[ThePhillyKid]

I agree with you 100% about the cable companies pricing and value proposition...however, I disagree with your conclusion.Here's why I think you've missed the bigger picture.NFL PR line:Cable wants to charge you ( the consumer ) more and put it on a special tier. The NFL is looking out for the consumer in trying to bring you the product for a fair price.NFL truth:Cable wants to put the product on a sports tier and pay our $8.00 / year / subscriber costs for the channel for approximately 10-20% of the total subscribers. We want to collect our $8 per year for every cable subscriber in America. Cable PR line:The NFL network has appeal to a subset of our customers, and we don't feel right having to charge $1 more to every customer for a product they don't really want. By putting it on a sports tier, the true sports fans can have access to the channel while we (the cable co. ) can protect our wider subscriber base.Cable truth:By limiting the NFL network to a sports tier, we can charge a premium for the sports package, and greatly reduce ( ~80% less ) our payout for the NFL content by limiting the number of subscribers. The fact that we constantly package channels that NOBODY cares about in our basic package is irrelevant, because we own those channels, so we don't have to pay out for them, although we can incrementally charge our subscribers for the 15 shopping channels.Don't buy into the PR lines of either of these organizations. You can decide for yourself which greedy, multi-billion dollar corporation you side with, but understand that the entire battle is over how these 2 can split your money. In either case, you'll be paying.Just some cheerful thoughts on this pre-christmas week 16 sunday.

 

[TitusIII]

Couldnt the NFL just pack it all up and say if anyone wants to watch it they'll have to watch it on PPV or get an exclusive contract with Cinemax if they really wanted to?

This is the NFL's end-game, will you pay?

 

[dparker713]

Couldnt the NFL just pack it all up and say if anyone wants to watch it they'll have to watch it on PPV or get an exclusive contract with Cinemax if they really wanted to?

This is the NFL's end-game, will you pay?

Well, hopefully the NFL learned from boxings mistake and wont do that. Besides, their anti trust exemption requires them to broadcast local games for free.

 

[Road Warriors]

Couldnt the NFL just pack it all up and say if anyone wants to watch it they'll have to watch it on PPV or get an exclusive contract with Cinemax if they really wanted to?

This is the NFL's end-game, will you pay?

I can't imagine the NFL wants to give up the 2+ billion they collect from CBS, FOX, ESPN and NBC for broadcast rights. The NFL network is a nice additional revenue stream, but I don't think the NFL is interested in moving solely to PPV. Too much money in a very nice, stable stream to pass up.

 

[Bri]

The NFL restricts the availability of its product and controls its distribution (as is its right) in order to increase demand and the OP is upset about it.

No, there aren't a couple of anti-capitalists in this thread...

The NFL hasn't chosen to restrict the availability to Vermont for what seems like 36 years(1971 I think, not an easy thing to search for another link looks like it might be 1978....a long time nonetheless). In all that time, VT was blacked out if the Pats didn't sell out, just like the Massachusetts area. If not, Vermont was shown the game free just like the Massachusetts area. Week 17 will be the first time that's not the case.

So, since they haven't blacked out Vermont since old Clyde died, they're never allowed to do it again? Again, if the NFL wants to determine who does and who does not get their games, that is THEIR right, not yours. They provide the service; you use it or don't use it at your discretion.Just tryin' to be of assistance; no hate intended...it's too close to Christmas, anyways.

It is as if they pulled the rug out from under alot of fans of one team. That is why I guess Leahy, Kerry and a few other Congressmen got involved in contacting Goodell. One guy on the radio said it was like they moved the team.

Cable may likely be involved here in the background but this issue is about it being offerred free on regular TV for so long and suddenly changed. One thing about some rural parts of the NE area is some don't even have cable available, it's not like those people have a choice and can pop on NFLN. I would guess the NFL wants to show cable companies (for future debate) what happens if they puff their chest out. Like many fans in the NE area, I'm not pleased about being made an example of IF this is what they're up to. It's hard to decipher what the NFL is doing here in regards to their cable negotiations since this is normally a free game on a major network.

I do recall reading that the NFL offerred TimeWarner to go to an arbitrator and IIRC there was a thread here on that too. They didn't give them much time, it was go before an arbitrator by this day. I think the day that offer ran out is when they pulled this move but I'm not certain.

Believe it or not, NE fans are not special. Everyone has been treated the same way by the NFLN broadcasts. You're the one asking for special treatment, even though other fans have had to deal with this for the past couple of years.This thread is yet another example of why to hate NE fans.

what's the first bolded sentence? the one I didn't make boldface type?I wasn't looking for anything special but for a continuation of the way it's been for that real long time. You might have noticed that if you read what you replied to

 

[Bri]

This thread is yet another example of why to hate NE fans.

post somewhere else then, you don't have to post in this topic if you don't like it.tools are welcomed at lots of other boards on the web

 

[dparker713]

The NFL restricts the availability of its product and controls its distribution (as is its right) in order to increase demand and the OP is upset about it.

No, there aren't a couple of anti-capitalists in this thread...

The NFL hasn't chosen to restrict the availability to Vermont for what seems like 36 years(1971 I think, not an easy thing to search for another link looks like it might be 1978....a long time nonetheless). In all that time, VT was blacked out if the Pats didn't sell out, just like the Massachusetts area. If not, Vermont was shown the game free just like the Massachusetts area. Week 17 will be the first time that's not the case.

So, since they haven't blacked out Vermont since old Clyde died, they're never allowed to do it again? Again, if the NFL wants to determine who does and who does not get their games, that is THEIR right, not yours. They provide the service; you use it or don't use it at your discretion.Just tryin' to be of assistance; no hate intended...it's too close to Christmas, anyways.

It is as if they pulled the rug out from under alot of fans of one team. That is why I guess Leahy, Kerry and a few other Congressmen got involved in contacting Goodell. One guy on the radio said it was like they moved the team.

Cable may likely be involved here in the background but this issue is about it being offerred free on regular TV for so long and suddenly changed. One thing about some rural parts of the NE area is some don't even have cable available, it's not like those people have a choice and can pop on NFLN. I would guess the NFL wants to show cable companies (for future debate) what happens if they puff their chest out. Like many fans in the NE area, I'm not pleased about being made an example of IF this is what they're up to. It's hard to decipher what the NFL is doing here in regards to their cable negotiations since this is normally a free game on a major network.

I do recall reading that the NFL offerred TimeWarner to go to an arbitrator and IIRC there was a thread here on that too. They didn't give them much time, it was go before an arbitrator by this day. I think the day that offer ran out is when they pulled this move but I'm not certain.

Believe it or not, NE fans are not special. Everyone has been treated the same way by the NFLN broadcasts. You're the one asking for special treatment, even though other fans have had to deal with this for the past couple of years.This thread is yet another example of why to hate NE fans.

what's the first bolded sentence? the one I didn't make boldface type?I wasn't looking for anything special but for a continuation of the way it's been for that real long time. You might have noticed that if you read what you replied to

The NFLN is new. Therefore, seeking a continuation of past policies is inapplicable. The NFL has instituted new policies and treated everyone the same. YOu act like the NFL has no right to change the way they do business because you got used to their old policies. Well, I didnt like when Coke changed from sugar to HFCS. Guess what, I stopped drinking it. Problem solved.And I only bolded the statement in your last post.-

 

[dparker713]

This thread is yet another example of why to hate NE fans.

post somewhere else then, you don't have to post in this topic if you don't like it.tools are welcomed at lots of other boards on the web

Careful, you could get a time out...