I am proud to bestow this week's award on frequent commentor Jeff, who has passionate opinions on the NFL Network vs. cable companies war that was the subject of Friday's newspaper column.
For weeks, including today, he has posted long, well-reasoned opinions on the subject both on the Web site and the WatchDog blog. (Several others joined him today in disagreeing with me on this issue.)
I can't cut and paste Jeff's comments because they're too long, but read them for yourself.
If it makes you feel any better, Jeff, consider that:
1. Many respected business and media writers lean toward the cable companies' side on this, no matter what I think, and assume I'm an NFL lapdog because of my many years covering the league.
2. Thanks to the magic of cyberspace, you now have had nearly as many opportunities to express your opinions on it as I have.
One factual point you keep making that I'm not sure about is just how many games were taken away from non-NFL Network fans to create the eight-game package.
I believe it is only four - the old Saturday doubleheaders on CBS and Fox. The other four would have been regional games not seen everywhere.
Anyway, let me clarify my stance: I'm not defending the NFL's decision to keep "Sunday Ticket'' a DirecTV exclusive. I'm not even defending the right of the NFL Network to be on basic cable, because I think we should move toward a fairer, more capitalistic, more a la carte (or at least more tiered) model for channel distribution.
It's just that as long as my cable box continues to be stuffed with niche channels that are there only because they are owned by a big cable or media company, the NFL deserves to be there as well . . . at a fair price. That's all.
Comments (10)
I'm biased. I'm one of thousands of Mets fans in Connecticut who have never seen SNY because of the carriage problems between them and Cox Cable. We've just completed our second full season of listening to the games on WFAN. While their broadcasters are excellent, it's just not fair to the children who love their Mets.
Also, because of some arcane rule, FOX, ESPN and TBS which we usually can see, are blacked out for Mets games.
Our basic cable bill from Cox is over $50/month. Many of us have no option for Direct TV or other options because of condo rules, Connecticut hills and valleys or other restrictions.
Any suggestions?????
I have DirecTV, and have owned it for over 10 years. I feel bad for people who can't get it because of location. I think the best thing to do is to call/write/email cable companies demanding SNY or NFL Network. Companies respond to consumer demands. Money talks. If people continue to leave cable for other options, they will get the message.
On a side note, in all these years, I must have lost power because of the weather in an important game/show maybe twice. Of course you could lose cable at any point despite good weather.
Jeff seems as obsessed with the cable companies as so many others are with Imus. Hey Dawg, do you get any extra credit in web counts for the number of words in comments? Jeff's run of three about your column was rather remarkable. Unfortunately, his writing reminds me of the Mathematics Supervisor he was. Maybe it is the mathematician in him that inspires him to number his paragraphs.
In my neighborhood, my only choice for cable is Cox. (I don't want a dish on my house.) Fortunately, Cox caries 95% of my local baseball team's games in High Definition and they finally made a deal with the NFL Network. Since I see my TV primarily as a news and sports delivery device, I'm mostly happy with what I get. My cable bill is too high though.
I often wonder what would happen to my bill and the media world if we all could purchase only the programs that we want? The basic package would be really basic and fairly consistent across all carriers. Would it take a new law to accomplish this? Most likely, as too many of us are not up for the fight.
Alas, the cable industry could most likely be indicted for Racketeering, but they never will.
I'm still happy over the NFL's decision to overturn the blackout rule in 1973. I realize that access to too many NFL games will destroy the quality of my life (otherwise known as marriage and fatherhood). Therefore, I am relieved to not have access to the additional games on NFL network.
I still look at life in the blackout days. Imagine the 2000 NFC Championship game blacked out in New York. Well, the Jets Raiders AFL title game in 1968 was not on live TV in New York - nor was the 69 playoff game with the Chiefs. I was lucky enough to live halfway between New York and Philadelphia and have a father who put a rotator on the roof antenna that allowed us to pull in these games from the Philadelphia stations. But most of the people who I lived among who were Jet fans never saw the two of the most important games in the first 10 years of the franchise. Because of the blackout rule, I never saw the first Jet Giant regular season game at Shea Stadium (it wasn't televised in Philadelphia that day). To me, the first time I saw a New York team on home television (Giants - Oilers from Yankee Stadium on Channel 4) was the most important event in my NFL TV viewing. I would love to have NFL Network on basic, but I'm still happy to have those homegames on local TV.
I think that if a cable network feels there is enough demand for the sportschannel, they will put it on. Just as Cablevision eventually had to do with YES and never bothered trying with SNY. Here in Central Florida, we do not get FSNFlorida. This season, the hometown Orlando Magic have taken all their games off of free tv and moved those games to FSN (35 games). So far, Bright House Networks ( major cable provider here) has not given in and added the channel where FSN wants it (basic cable). I believe this has to do with there being no demand for it, or not enough. The same with NFL Network. I don't need it, I don't want it. We don't have it.
As far as Annie Savoy's problem with SNY, there must not be very much demand for it or else Cox would have put it somewhere. You probably have plenty of baseball as it is and the casual fans don't want the channel or don't make it clear they want it. Until there is competition for your dollars, that's life as it is. Nobody has ever guaranteed fans can see all their teams' games on tv.
Thank you Neil...
For the last several years before the advent of NFL Network, ESPN was given a Saturday evening game the last 2 Saturdays of the season to pair with their Sunday evening game....so there used to be 3 games available on Saturday, CBS, FOX and ESPN...now you have to decide whether to consider ESPN an extension of free television.
But we still come down to a very simple issue. a hypocritical NFL. On one hand they are complaining the cable networks are freezing their fans out of games, on the other hand they are freezing the cable networks out of package that indeed has cost them thousands of fans who have migrated, if they could, to directv,.j The issue is further exasperated by the fact that directv is not available to at least 50% of the public if not more.
I don't need a long disertation to make that clear. No Sunday Ticket, no NFL Network on basic cable and that is very clear.
Annie's problem with SNY is geography and MLB.
The Mets territory in Connecticut only covers Fairfield County.
Nielsen's NY market only counts Fairfield County for CT.
The rest of CT is Red Sox Nation for MLB, Patriots country for the NFL, etc ...
As a general rule, the Yankees have a wider territory than the Mets as far as Upstate NY, Northern Pennsylvania, and the New Haven/Hartford market are concerned... history is probably one of the main factors in that.
That ESPN set up in Bristol wasn't a coincidence. They knew they'd be able to get both Yanks and Sox games. Giants and Pats, and so on...
exklsufop ozxiclpt ctfum iloecnvm upryl tknlzvduj jwixp
eomzgtlv kwsy rgiq egnhx gbcpeyjt jvazerb vqjepmt http://www.brxupamq.otmp.com