NFL PING
FReepmail scott says to be added to, or to be taken off the NFL Ping list...
This is a fairly high volume ping list
Posted on 12/19/2007 5:22:15 PM PST by Snickering Hound
WAHINGTON — Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the NFL on Wednesday threatening to reconsider the league's antitrust exemption if it doesn't make games on the NFL Network available to more viewers.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., expressed concern that many fans in their home states will not be able to see games on the channel involving the New England Patriots or the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Leahy is the committee's chairman, and Specter is its ranking member.
"Now that the NFL is adopting strategies to limit distribution of game programming to their own networks," they wrote, "Congress may need to reexamine the need and desirability of their continued exemption from the Nation's antitrust laws."
Eight games air this season on the NFL Network, which is available in fewer than 40 percent of the nation's homes with televisions. The league has been feuding with several major cable companies over whether they should carry the channel as part of a basic package.
Games are simulcast on free TV locally for each team, but that doesn't include regional markets such as Vermont for the Patriots or parts of Pennsylvania for the Steelers. NFL officials have repeatedly said they will not agree to any distribution arrangement that only involves games and not year-round broadcast of the channel.
How many folks care about NFL coverage when they aren't playing games? Some hardcore gamblers, perhaps.
I am against this type of congressional monkeying usually but I admit they have a point.
Same problem with ESPNU for some college football games. I buy the season ticket for college football on Directv and they advertise it that you will see all the games but that is not true since I don’t get ESPNU (part of the biggest package).
The NFL network was a brilliant idea and marketing tool but they need to expand the market for it. I would assume the cable companies don’t wish to pay the NFL network what they are asking.
The current trend (which sucks) seems to be leading the NFL toward pricing themselves out of the market. I enjoy watching football as much as the next guy, but there is a limit to how much I can/will spend directly out of pocket, over and above enduring the commercial interruptions, only to further enrich millionaires...
Bttt
The NFL Network has got to hurt the NFL.
I’m pretty sure most do. It’s no coincidence that ESPN devotes a good chunk of its programming on all of its channels to football.
First, the monopoly that cable companies have in many cities needs to end. Second, (and this would follow if there were real competition), consumers ought to be able to pay for only those channels they want to receive. I hate these darn package deals. There are so many channels I would love to eliminate.
What monopoly? You have a myriad of choices in television programming providers.
I guess we get to see which Senators that Comcast and Time Warner have in their pocket.
No, in many areas, cable companies are protected from competition from other cable companies. Cities and towns are allowed to choose one cable company to serve their area. Yes, there is still satellite, but in most places, you only have one choice in cable.
>>>I am against this type of congressional monkeying usually but I admit they have a point.<<<
No, they don’t.
There is no need for government involvement in telling a private entity under what conditions and to whom they must make their product available.
The NFL doesn’t have a monopoly. It’s not like indian gambling. Anybody can start a new league if they want to. New England and NY aren’t business competitors, they are partners.
Of course you are right. But you have to add that Congress has no business exempting any business from the antitrust laws. Can’t have one without the other.
What in the name of the wide wide world of sports is the US Congress doing monkeying around in the NFL’s business?
Is there anything else that Congress could be doing that is a tad more productive?
Is there anything else that Congress could be doing that is a tad more productive?
Do you really want them doing things they think are productive?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.