rbmcdonald Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 (edited) This is not all on Comcast and the other cable companies. Cable companies suck (because they are granted quasi monopolies), but the NFL is demanding way more money than the numbers justify. They basiclly are saying they deserve twice as much for every viewer that they bring to cable TV, then Nickolodian, or Animal Planet or whatever. It is like in Texas when AT&T and Time Warner were fighting over legislation, and they were spending millions on advertising saying the other one sucked......dude, you both suck, take your money and shut up. Edited May 12, 2007 by rbmcdonald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 You people who have had issues with Driectv, it was your dish position, not the service. How many times do we have to tell you this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsman2806 Posted May 12, 2007 Share Posted May 12, 2007 The real problem is positioning of the dish and how well buckled down it is. If it is pointed in the right direction and doesn't move, only a huge meteor should affect the signal. I have NEVER had a problem, even in Hurricane conditions! ditto, I live in the caribbean and my signal is perfect . On ocassion you get a dropoff in the signal but that is very rare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 Arguments about quality of cable vs. DirecTV are pretty silly. It's the same on both depending on where you live. Cable companies make ridiculous claims about satellite, and vice-versa... it's all advertising. But... I think you guys may be missing the business aspect of this decision. The NFL tried to bully cable companies into paying premium prices and carrying the channel on basic tiers. Cable companies just won the legal battle over that. The NFL network's ratings, and therefore their ad revenue, is going to go in the crapper if they get moved to a sports tier. They will either lower their cost to cable companies to get greater exposure, or they will have to setlle for far less income, and they won't be able to afford all the exclusive programming. If you DirecTV and Dish people don't think that they will follow the cable company's lead if the NFL Network doesn't lower their prices, you're fooling yourself. If anything, it'll just be included for the Sunday Ticket subscribers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 If you noticed, I said they're "HEADING" towards a monoply. If upon the expiration of all current NFL TV contracts (FOX, CBS, ESPN & DirectTV) the NFL declines to offer any further TV contracts & instead keeps all NFL programming for their own Network, that my friend, is a monopoly. Heck, just last year, the NFL's deal with DirectTV for the Sunday Ticket came under scrutiny from the US Senate Judiciary Committee, as possibly being a monopoly & violating anti-trust laws. US Senate Judiciary Committee - Competition in Sports Programming and Broadcasting: Are Consumers Winning Make any sense to you now, Pope? Oh it absolutely does. I work in the film business and what the NFL is flirting with is vertical integration, which is what the major film studios were guilty of back in the day: they made the product and owned the theaters said product was shown in. But that's not the angle being looked at from my understanding. I also don't think the NFL will trip themselves up, they'll be sure to keep their exemption. These hearing are interesting because some of the logic seems clear, while other parts seem to be missing some context. The opening statements on the part of Leahy talk of concern about the 'free, over the air' aspect of Football broadcasts being lost but the context of that statement is that in 3 years time there will be no more analog 'free over the air broadcasts' on standard def TV's, you're going to need a digital receiver in your television to receive any signal whatsoever. That doesn't sound very free to me. Another thing is: is the NFL in the clear if they offer their channel to all cable providers? In the Time Warner case they are now able to be charged a premium but is the NFL responsible for that or is that how the market is now set? In other words, if the Senate is concerned that 'free' be preserved how far does that have to go until the NFL is held back from using emerging technologies? I, for one, see the eventual migration of the Super Bowl to the NFL network. There's too much money in that event, and if Goodell is smart he'll slide it to Saturday Night with a Bye Week after the Conference Championships and make major coin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 This is not all on Comcast and the other cable companies. Cable companies suck (because they are granted quasi monopolies), but the NFL is demanding way more money than the numbers justify. They basiclly are saying they deserve twice as much for every viewer that they bring to cable TV, then Nickolodian, or Animal Planet or whatever. Well, there is more value in getting a 25-45 year old man to tune in for 3 hours than a 12 year old watching Nickolodeon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 Looks like I'll continue to not subscribe to the NFL Network. You're not missing much. It's great to have it free, believe me, but i would never pay for it. Not until they replace the seemingly 18 consecutive airings on NFL Total Crapfest daily with some of the endelss library of games and NFL Films programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 These hearing are interesting because some of the logic seems clear, while other parts seem to be missing some context. The opening statements on the part of Leahy talk of concern about the 'free, over the air' aspect of Football broadcasts being lost but the context of that statement is that in 3 years time there will be no more analog 'free over the air broadcasts' on standard def TV's, you're going to need a digital receiver in your television to receive any signal whatsoever. That doesn't sound very free to me. Same argument as when color TV came out. Why go to color when everyone has black & white TV's? Or cable. Everyone with the then current TV's that weren't cable ready, would have to buy / rent a cable box or go out & buy a cable ready TV to get a cable signal, so why even introduce cable & penalize those folks? Or when unleaded gas came out. Everyone had cars that only took leaded gas, so why penalize them by going to unleaded gas & making them buy a leaded additive? There's currently a push in the cabinet making industry (kitchen counters - bathroom vanities, etc) to increase the height of these units. Currently all cabinets are designed to be optimal for a person of 5' 4" height. That was great in the 1950's & before, when the norm was for women to be the ones predominantly in the kitchen. But that was then & this is now & we see an equal mix of genders utilizing the kitchen (& always bathroom vanities). The cross gender average height in America is now 5' 7.4". Unfortunately there is still a great number of older woodworking machines still in good working order, that were specifically designed to manufacture cabinets at the 5' 4" standard. These cannot be easily modified to produce taller cabinets, without considerable expense. So should the US cabinet manufacturers continue making bathroom vanities & kitchen counters 3" shorter than optimal height, because some manufactures will have to purchase new machinery or install expensive retrofits to existing older woodworking equipment? Etc...etc...etc... Unless your argument is to stagnate all technology & manufacturing at our current levels & not bother advancing, I don't see how the above can be avoided & not just with over air broadcasts, but as noted, pretty much all industries. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, after 2009 - 2010?, you won't even be able to buy a TV without it having the required Hi Def digital receiver already built in. Personally, I'm a bit of a techno geek, so we've already bought a TV with the Hi Def receiver built in. Probably way overkill on my part, but besides having both cable & DirecTV, I've installed one of those in attic, over air broadcast amplifying antennas & have a video out jack from my PC to the TV. So far it's only happened once where I lost both DirecTV & cable at the same time, but I simply switched over to my third option of over air broadcast - in Hi Def no less - never missing a snap. Plus, with our TV being set up to receive info from the PC & having both wireless mouse & keyboard, I'm able to take advantage of any & all I-net feeds - streaming video or otherwise. Nothing like reading & responding to the Huddle via the 52" TV, while kicked back on our couch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 Same argument as when color TV came out. Why go to color when everyone has black & white TV's? Or cable. Everyone with the then current TV's that weren't cable ready, would have to buy / rent a cable box or go out & buy a cable ready TV to get a cable signal, so why even introduce cable & penalize those folks? Or when unleaded gas came out. Everyone had cars that only took leaded gas, so why penalize them by going to unleaded gas & making them buy a leaded additive? There's currently a push in the cabinet making industry (kitchen counters - bathroom vanities, etc) to increase the height of these units. Currently all cabinets are designed to be optimal for a person of 5' 4" height. That was great in the 1950's & before, when the norm was for women to be the ones predominantly in the kitchen. But that was then & this is now & we see an equal mix of genders utilizing the kitchen (& always bathroom vanities). The cross gender average height in America is now 5' 7.4". Unfortunately there is still a great number of older woodworking machines still in good working order, that were specifically designed to manufacture cabinets at the 5' 4" standard. These cannot be easily modified to produce taller cabinets, without considerable expense. So should the US cabinet manufacturers continue making bathroom vanities & kitchen counters 3" shorter than optimal height, because some manufactures will have to purchase new machinery or install expensive retrofits to existing older woodworking equipment? Etc...etc...etc... Unless your argument is to stagnate all technology & manufacturing at our current levels & not bother advancing, I don't see how the above can be avoided & not just with over air broadcasts, but as noted, pretty much all industries. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, after 2009 - 2010?, you won't even be able to buy a TV without it having the required Hi Def digital receiver already built in. Personally, I'm a bit of a techno geek, so we've already bought a TV with the Hi Def receiver built in. Probably way overkill on my part, but besides having both cable & DirecTV, I've installed one of those in attic, over air broadcast amplifying antennas & have a video out jack from my PC to the TV. So far it's only happened once where I lost both DirecTV & cable at the same time, but I simply switched over to my third option of over air broadcast - in Hi Def no less - never missing a snap. Plus, with our TV being set up to receive info from the PC & having both wireless mouse & keyboard, I'm able to take advantage of any & all I-net feeds - streaming video or otherwise. Nothing like reading & responding to the Huddle via the 52" TV, while kicked back on our couch! Sounds like my type of setup. Redundency, streaming video from the net and setting your line-up at the same time without moving. If I setup my system like that I'd never move from the couch - ever!!! I'd be 600lbs. but I'd never need to move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 (edited) The real problem is positioning of the dish and how well buckled down it is. If it is pointed in the right direction and doesn't move, only a huge meteor should affect the signal. That's not true. I've seen satellite signal (DirecTV, Dish Network, etc.) go to crap for 40+ minutes in rain in a NUMBER of places. This is a well-documented phenomenon known as Rain Fade. The dish doesn't need to be physically moved for the signal to suffer. I have NEVER had a problem, even in Hurricane conditions! Sure, I had signal while catching the edge of Hurricane Rita (rain and 40+ mph sustained wind). But I've also lost signal for an hour or more in a run-of-the-mill thunderstorm. Edited May 13, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted May 13, 2007 Share Posted May 13, 2007 Whats next, Pay Per View Thanksgiving Day Games? Don't laugh. It's probably coming. I've been a Directv subscriber for years and their Total Choice package always seems to lose a channel or two. Just a mater of time before the NFL Network gets bumped up to the Total Choice Plus plan. Now that Comcast won their case, I fear Directv might just want to make some more $ also. Greedy bastages! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbmcdonald Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Well, there is more value in getting a 25-45 year old man to tune in for 3 hours than a 12 year old watching Nickolodeon. Ad Execs would argue with you on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbmcdonald Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Arguments about quality of cable vs. DirecTV are pretty silly. It's the same on both depending on where you live. Cable companies make ridiculous claims about satellite, and vice-versa... it's all advertising. Go ask the Cable company where the signle comes from before they put it on the little wire that runs to your house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Go ask the Cable company where the signle comes from before they put it on the little wire that runs to your house. Mexico? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Unless your argument is to stagnate all technology & manufacturing at our current levels & not bother advancing, I don't see how the above can be avoided & not just with over air broadcasts, but as noted, pretty much all industries. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, after 2009 - 2010?, you won't even be able to buy a TV without it having the required Hi Def digital receiver already built in. I'm not arguing one way or another. The die is cast: Tvs without digital receivers will be obsolete in 2009 for broadcast reception. What I'm saying is with that in mind, how can it be though of as 'free' which is what the Senate panel appears to be trying to preserve: the free broadcasting of games. In 2009, it won't be free for many people, as TVs without digital receivers are probably more plentiful than you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonkis Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Doesn't Satellite TV require extra money per month per TV? $5 a TV or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 I'm not arguing one way or another. The die is cast: Tvs without digital receivers will be obsolete in 2009 for broadcast reception. What I'm saying is with that in mind, how can it be though of as 'free' which is what the Senate panel appears to be trying to preserve: the free broadcasting of games. In 2009, it won't be free for many people, as TVs without digital receivers are probably more plentiful than you think. This is pretty weak logic. The broadcasters don't profit from you buying a new TV. Digital-over-the-air has far more benefits to people who don't want to pay for cable. It's far better free TV, and it IS free. You just need to have capable hardware, or a converter for your TV. It's a shame lots of people will have to upgrade, but it's also going to allow for more channels, better quality, and looser licensing restrictions for broadcasters. It's a serious threat to the cable industry's monopoly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Doesn't Satellite TV require extra money per month per TV? $5 a TV or something? Digital cable does too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 This is pretty weak logic. The broadcasters don't profit from you buying a new TV. Digital-over-the-air has far more benefits to people who don't want to pay for cable. It's far better free TV, and it IS free. You just need to have capable hardware, or a converter for your TV. It's a shame lots of people will have to upgrade, but it's also going to allow for more channels, better quality, and looser licensing restrictions for broadcasters. It's a serious threat to the cable industry's monopoly. what I'm saying is I'm having a hard time listening to Senators rail that sports broadcasts should be kept free when at the same time they're forcing customers into purchasing new TV sets to keep getting stuff for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 I'm not arguing one way or another. The die is cast: Tvs without digital receivers will be obsolete in 2009 for broadcast reception. What I'm saying is with that in mind, how can it be though of as 'free' which is what the Senate panel appears to be trying to preserve: the free broadcasting of games. In 2009, it won't be free for many people, as TVs without digital receivers are probably more plentiful than you think. I see what you're saying Pope, but I'm not sure if the point you're trying to make is all that logical. It seems your argument is that a Hi Def TV receiver must be first purchased to receive the "free" broadcast signal in 2009, therefore how can it be classified as "free" signal? However, if going by that logic, understand that regardless of the free over air signal being broadcast in analog, or Hi Def, receiving equipment must be first purchased to receive EITHER type of signal. Going by your parameters, how can you say one signal is "free", but the other is not? What the panel is concerned about, is that regardless of the signal receiving equipment people have, analog or Hi Def, today or 2009, nobody can receive the NFL Networks signal, without the additional expense of either cable or satellite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Looks like I'll continue to not subscribe to Comcast. Fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 what I'm saying is I'm having a hard time listening to Senators rail that sports broadcasts should be kept free when at the same time they're forcing customers into purchasing new TV sets to keep getting stuff for free. Some people had the same argument when Color TV's were first invented. To enjoy free broadcasts in color, customers were forced into purchasing new TV sets. Going even further back, I remember hearing my Grandparents rail against having to buy a TV. They were quite happy with their radio & resented being forced into buying a TV to get the newfangled free TV broadcast stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Some people had the same argument when Color TV's were first invented. To enjoy free broadcasts in color, customers were forced into purchasing new TV sets. Going even further back, I remember hearing my Grandparents rail against having to buy a TV. They were quite happy with their radio & resented being forced into buying a TV to get the newfangled free TV broadcast stuff. You lack reading comprehension - seriously. For the 5th time: I'm not arguing against the switch. I'm saying it's pointless and hypocritical to admonish the NFL for not keeping their broadcasts free and accessible by the very same people who are forcing a consumer change on the market place which forces people to upgrade their sets to keep receiving free programming. Does that make senseto you bs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 (edited) I see what you're saying Pope, but I'm not sure if the point you're trying to make is all that logical. It seems your argument is that a Hi Def TV receiver must be first purchased to receive the "free" broadcast signal in 2009, therefore how can it be classified as "free" signal? However, if going by that logic, understand that regardless of the free over air signal being broadcast in analog, or Hi Def, receiving equipment must be first purchased to receive EITHER type of signal. Going by your parameters, how can you say one signal is "free", but the other is not? What the panel is concerned about, is that regardless of the signal receiving equipment people have, analog or Hi Def, today or 2009, nobody can receive the NFL Networks signal, without the additional expense of either cable or satellite. You do NOT understand what I'm talking about. Digital broadcasting isn't the same as Hi-Def broadcasting, although HiDef broadcasting is digital. Here's a link: http://news.com.com/Digital+TV+switch+set+..._3-6004429.html What I'm saying is people who have made an investment in TV get their signals for free now. They spent, they get it. Now, they'll HAVE to spend again. So while I'll concede that it wasn't truly free to begin with forces them to invest more money to keep getting a free signal. Edited May 15, 2007 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 what I'm saying is You do NOT understand what I'm talking about. You lack reading comprehension - seriously. For the 5th time I think it's possible that you are either not making your point as clearly as you think you are... or you aren't actually making a good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.