NFL Network flap may jeopardize league's antitrust exemption

[theogt]

Name me one historical example of economic libertarianism tha has worked. i can name several from the opposite side. 'Stimulating competition' is still market intervention and unfair trade practices are something we should try and stop regardless.

Uhh...what?

Your argument appears to be that anarchism is bad, but not that economic liberalism is bad. Everyone agrees that economic liberalism is essential. There are no major economies that operate otherwise. China could barely be called communist anymore.

 

[Da Hammer]

While I agree with you that fans won't stand for it, that doesn't mean the NFL doesn't have a right to do what they are doing. And when the fans turn against it, they will change their business model accordingly. That's how business is done.

agreed that is how business is done. i guess basically im sayin is that i along with most other fans wish that the NFL would show more loyalty to their fans but of course they don't. i dont blame them for wanting more money cause most everyone in this world are greedy *******s but they are going about it the wrong way IMO...

 

[Idgit]

i can understand that its "THEIR" product. but the fact is the fans are the people who make "THEIR" product successful. they continue to try and make the fans pay more and they will lose audience no matter how huge "THEIR" product is right now. in the end they will lose more money if they try to screw the fans by charging us more because more fans wont stand it for it than the NFL thinks because they think people will eat up their product no matter what. when in reality a lot of fans wont stand for it. its not smart financially for the NFL in the long run and its not fair to the people who have made them HUGE!

This is a simple supply/demand equation. The NFL is expanding its audience, not contracting it. Everything they do with the marketing of the games is aimed at this. There's enough demand to justify higher prices, so they can and will take advantage of it.

As far as making all cable customers pay a premium to have NFL content provided in a base package. One, that doesn't have to be the case, it's just that the cost of the programming is being passed on to the consumer. Two, if adding NFL programming to the basket of programs the cable companies already offer makes that basket more valuable on the whole, then what's the problem with charging more for it? Sure, eventually you lose those subscribers who can't afford the extra dollar, but ultimately those numbers work themselves out.

Pricing the games properly and expanding distribution is good for the game. It creates an imperative to keep quality high and the product consistent. This isn't something that disadvantages fans in the long run.

 

[NorthDalal]

i can understand that its "THEIR" product. but the fact is the fans are the people who make "THEIR" product successful. they continue to try and make the fans pay more and they will lose audience no matter how huge "THEIR" product is right now. in the end they will lose more money if they try to screw the fans by charging us more because more fans wont stand it for it than the NFL thinks because they think people will eat up their product no matter what. when in reality a lot of fans wont stand for it. its not smart financially for the NFL in the long run and its not fair to the people who have made them HUGE!

Da Hammer,

Don't you realize that the NFL understands your point very well. They are outstanding at bring you a product you want to see. The NHL, or Indoor soccer or pro lacrosse by contrast do not.

Since they are now America's # 1 sport and incidently the largest audience draw for cable TV as well, why do you suggest they should price their product at a level you or Comcast & TW find atractive enough so you may have it for free or the cable giants can force it onto a special channel at $10.99/month along with golf and gymnastics? None wants to pay 130.00+ a year to watch a collection of sports if they only want the NFL and of course, viewership will drop radically and the NFL channel will fail.

The NFL knows the market will bear them out by punishing the CC and TW execs for their mistake.They already lost me in August 2006. I'm a FIOS subsciber they seem to have no trouble with this problem.

 

[theogt]

This is a simple supply/demand equation. The NFL is expanding its audience, not contracting it. Everything they do with the marketing of the games is aimed at this. There's enough demand to justify higher prices, so they can and will take advantage of it.

As far as making all cable customers pay a premium to have NFL content provided in a base package. One, that doesn't have to be the case, it's just that the cost of the programming is being passed on to the consumer. Two, if adding NFL programming to the basket of programs the cable companies already offer makes that basket more valuable on the whole, then what's the problem with charging more for it? Sure, eventually you lose those subscribers who can't afford the extra dollar, but ultimately those numbers work themselves out.

Pricing the games properly and expanding distribution is good for the game. It creates an imperative to keep quality high and the product consistent. This isn't something that disadvantages fans in the long run.

All monopolies want to expand their product. That's not the problem (well in a way, it's part of the problem). Look up "monopoly pricing" for crying out loud.

 

[Jimz31]

Freakin' .gov....stickin' there nose in places that it doesn't belong.

 

[Royal Laegotti]

Name me one historical example of economic libertarianism tha has worked. i can name several from the opposite side. 'Stimulating competition' is still market intervention and unfair trade practices are something we should try and stop regardless.

I guess if you love being under big bro's thumb then you have it now and will likely have more of it in the future. Congratulations!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess if you love being under big bro's thumb then you have it now and will likely have more of it in the future. Congratulations!

This is dumb. Im sorry but its just dumb. Im not talking about individual liberties. Im talking about keeping the biggest power brokers in the world in check. If you dont do it then you get the same issues that we had in 1919, and the 1870s.

If they start invading the privacy of the individual or continue to curtail the liberties of the individual then i will care. Were not talking about that. We are talking about billion dollar corporations that have shown that they should not be given free reign.

What youre doing is called fear mongering and Im sorry there is no slippery slope.

Oh and if you havent figured it out perhaps you should read 1984 or Brave New World because big brother was in bed with large corporations to better their own cause and squish the little man. Youre thinking is so backwards its not even funny.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Uhh...what?

Your argument appears to be that anarchism is bad, but not that economic liberalism is bad. Everyone agrees that economic liberalism is essential. There are no major economies that operate otherwise. China could barely be called communist anymore.

Im talking pure laissez faire not a hybrid. He is saying that all government intervention is bad because it demonstrates a curtailing of civil liberties.

My point is that they are two different things. Not only is one personal versus economic but its also micro versus macro.

 

[Royal Laegotti]

This is dumb. Im sorry but its just dumb. Im not talking about individual liberties. Im talking about keeping the biggest power brokers in the world in check. If you dont do it then you get the same issues that we had in 1919, and the 1870s.

If they start invading the privacy of the individual or continue to curtail the liberties of the individual then i will care. Were not talking about that. We are talking about billion dollar corporations that have shown that they should not be given free reign.

What youre doing is called fear mongering and Im sorry there is no slippery slope.

Oh and if you havent figured it out perhaps you should read 1984 or Brave New World because big brother was in bed with large corporations to better their own cause and squish the little man. Youre thinking is so backwards its not even funny.

OK allow me to requote myself. "If you love for all of corporate America to be under big bro's thumb then you have it now and will likely have more of it later. Congratulations.

OK I can agree with you to some extent about keeping the 'power brokers' in check to prevent something like what happen in actually 1913. But this issue with the NFL Network vs. Cable companies is small potatoes compared to that. It just seems the Feds get bigger and bigger every day and really who's there to keep them in check, not the people, we're the ones in check now, by them.

You really can't do much of anything nowadays without having to pay for some sort of permit or a tax or a fee and it gets old and it gets to be more and more.

I work for a major corporation (just a peon) and I see the frustrating things/regulations they put on us that even make my job harder and it's all about $$$$ and power for them and maybe to a small degree protection for the public which is just a by product of the govt willing it's power. The govt always has it's hand in your cookie jar whether you're an individual or a Corp. That's really where I'm coming from. I'm done with my rant now!

 

[Royal Laegotti]

Oh and if you havent figured it out perhaps you should read 1984 or Brave New World because big brother was in bed with large corporations to better their own cause and squish the little man. Youre thinking is so backwards its not even funny.

If that is what you believe then why do you want the govt to rescue you from the evil corportions/monopolies while they pleasure each other in bed at your expense and seek to destroy you? What kind of sense does that make? Maybe your thinking is backwards, most commys think that way ya know!

 

[Idgit]

All monopolies want to expand their product. That's not the problem (well in a way, it's part of the problem). Look up "monopoly pricing" for crying out loud.

We're talking about pricing for (sports) programming for the cable broadcasting market. The NFL is not a monopoly in this circumstance.

 

[theogt]

We're talking about pricing for (sports) programming for the cable broadcasting market. The NFL is not a monopoly in this circumstance.

Defining the market can be one of the biggest issues in anti-trust litigation. Attempting to just waive this issue (in your favor) is incredibly naive.

Im talking pure laissez faire not a hybrid. He is saying that all government intervention is bad because it demonstrates a curtailing of civil liberties.

My point is that they are two different things. Not only is one personal versus economic but its also micro versus macro.

Pure laissez faire = anarchism. You're arguing against anarchism. There's no one on the other side arguing against you. No one. Not a soul. This is like arguing that Roy Williams isn't the best safety in the history of NFL safeties. There's no one that disagrees with you.

 

[Idgit]

Defining the market can be one of the biggest issues in anti-trust litigation. Attempting to just waive this issue (in your favor) is incredibly naive.

I can live with naive, as long as it's accurate. Unless the NFL is the only one selling programming of this sort, it's not a monopoly. Since the whole point for the cable networks is to create a premium tier with other sports programming of this sort, clearly the issue of defining this market isn't as complicated as you'd like to make it seem.

 

[theogt]

I can live with naive, as long as it's accurate. Unless the NFL is the only one selling programming of this sort, it's not a monopoly. Since the whole point for the cable networks is to create a premium tier with other sports programming of this sort, clearly the issue of defining this market isn't as complicated as you'd like to make it seem.

What are they selling? Entertainment? Sports entertainment? Football entertainment? Professional football entertainment? NFL football entertainment?

The anti-trust implications are different for each answer. You can't just pick one and go with it. This is an incredibly complex discussion that not a soul in this thread fully comprehends (including myself), without further research. There's no point even discussing it (as I said in the very beginning).

 

[Idgit]

What are they selling? Entertainment? Sports entertainment? Football entertainment? Professional football entertainment? NFL football entertainment?

The anti-trust implications are different for each answer. You can't just pick one and go with it. This is an incredibly complex discussion that not a soul in this thread fully comprehends (including myself), without further research. There's no point even discussing it (as I said in the very beginning).

Of the choices you're offering, NFL football entertainment is the only option where they can be considered to have a monopoly. And then, it's in much the same way that the guy at www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com has a monopoly on fat-chicks-in-hats related entertainment. Which is to say it's a circular, meaningless, and uninteresting definition.

The issue isn't as complicated as you're trying to make it sound, and it's not an anti-trust issue, as I said in the beginning. It's a straightforward distribution issue with the only problem being that the content creator is not willing to sell its product under the terms currently being offered by the distribution partner.

 

[theogt]

Of the choices you're offering, NFL football entertainment is the only option where they can be considered to have a monopoly. And then, it's in much the same way that the guy at www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com has a monopoly on fat-chicks-in-hats related entertainment. Which is to say it's a circular, meaningless, and uninteresting definition.

The issue isn't as complicated as you're trying to make it sound, and it's not an anti-trust issue, as I said in the beginning. It's a straightforward distribution issue with the only problem being that the content creator is not willing to sell its product under the terms currently being offered by the distribution partner.

Ok. It's pretty clear at this point that you have little to no knowledge of anti-trust law. I'm sorry I even began this discussion.

Have a nice evening.

 

[Idgit]

Ok. It's pretty clear at this point that you have little to no knowledge of anti-trust law. I'm sorry I even began this discussion.

Have a nice evening.

I can't imagine what from my posts in this thread ever gave you the impression that I had any knowledge of or interest in anti-trust law.

That doesn't change the fact that the dispute between the NFL and the cable companies is not an anti-trust issue and that the US congress has no business getting itself involved here just because a donor called to cash in a chit.

But, sleep well, theogt.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Defining the market can be one of the biggest issues in anti-trust litigation. Attempting to just waive this issue (in your favor) is incredibly naive.

Pure laissez faire = anarchism. You're arguing against anarchism. There's no one on the other side arguing against you. No one. Not a soul. This is like arguing that Roy Williams isn't the best safety in the history of NFL safeties. There's no one that disagrees with you.

Hey Im not the one that is saying that all government intervention is inherently bad.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK allow me to requote myself. "If you love for all of corporate America to be under big bro's thumb then you have it now and will likely have more of it later. Congratulations.

OK I can agree with you to some extent about keeping the 'power brokers' in check to prevent something like what happen in actually 1913. But this issue with the NFL Network vs. Cable companies is small potatoes compared to that. It just seems the Feds get bigger and bigger every day and really who's there to keep them in check, not the people, we're the ones in check now, by them.

You really can't do much of anything nowadays without having to pay for some sort of permit or a tax or a fee and it gets old and it gets to be more and more.

I work for a major corporation (just a peon) and I see the frustrating things/regulations they put on us that even make my job harder and it's all about $$$$ and power for them and maybe to a small degree protection for the public which is just a by product of the govt willing it's power. The govt always has it's hand in your cookie jar whether you're an individual or a Corp. That's really where I'm coming from. I'm done with my rant now!

If that is what you believe then why do you want the govt to rescue you from the evil corportions/monopolies while they pleasure each other in bed at your expense and seek to destroy you? What kind of sense does that make? Maybe your thinking is backwards, most commys think that way ya know!

Oh so now im a communist? Again youre just being dumb. Lets try some buzzwords. Well like you most ***** think backwards...

Making up stuff to defame others is fun!!!

i should have never let this get past the fact that this has no impact on individual liberties so your original assertion is just plain wrong.

Oh and i worked for USAA for 4 years and i am well aware of how government works. in fact insurance is one of the most regulated industries out there where literally the company has to submit its prices to the state for approval.

Oh poor billion dollar corporations.... Give me a friggin break.

Oh and now the cookie jar analogy. Well first its civil liberties and now its taxation. Too bad this has nothing to do with either.