NBC Promises No Super Bowl, Olympics On Cable
- Thread starter TMC1982
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 18
- Views 2K
I think any sporting event like the World Series, Superbowl should stay off cable and go on regular television.
What really pisses me off as a dealer is that a week before superbowl there are bars and resturants that must have a new satellite system installed for the Superbowl, yet they don't realize they probably already get the superbowl with regular TV.
A sale is a sale, but the problem is that after superbowl is ovet they want to cancel their Dish subscription.
What really pisses me off as a dealer is that a week before superbowl there are bars and resturants that must have a new satellite system installed for the Superbowl, yet they don't realize they probably already get the superbowl with regular TV.
A sale is a sale, but the problem is that after superbowl is ovet they want to cancel their Dish subscription.
You cannot trust Comcast and you cannot trust the FCC to enforce things.
Just look at the duopoly rule. There are 50 violations of a black and white rule, and the FCC has been "studying" these corporations open contempt for the law for over a decade.
Personally, I don't care if events go to "cable" or stay on OTA TV. You have to pay for the "free" OTA channels just the same.
Just look at the duopoly rule. There are 50 violations of a black and white rule, and the FCC has been "studying" these corporations open contempt for the law for over a decade.
Personally, I don't care if events go to "cable" or stay on OTA TV. You have to pay for the "free" OTA channels just the same.
What happens when "regular television" doesn't exist anymore? How many people actually still (able) to use a OTA anymore? Most people "pay" to see the world series/super bowl all ready via cable/satellite
What does the World Series have to do with this? Isn't the World Series exclusive to FOX until 2013? Or was he just using the World Series as an example?
NBC has no say over whether the Super Bowl is on cable or not. That's for the NFL to decide. Otherwise ESPN would have done it long ago.
Wouldn't ever happen, it would be the least watched and advertising wouldn't be as valuable. There are a lot of people who don't have pay TV.
Don't really have a problem with additional Olympic coverage on cable, but primary coverage should still be on a public network, again it goes back to the value of advertising, it makes sense for them to not shove it all onto a cable network.
Don't really have a problem with additional Olympic coverage on cable, but primary coverage should still be on a public network, again it goes back to the value of advertising, it makes sense for them to not shove it all onto a cable network.
Advertising revenue for the Super Bowl > whatever $$ the TV network pays for the rights to broadcast the game.
As long as the Super Bowl is more likely to be seen by a larger audience on non-cable channels, it will stay there.
As long as the Super Bowl is more likely to be seen by a larger audience on non-cable channels, it will stay there.
NBC already shows multiple Olympic sports only on their cable channels. Does this mean that MSNBC and CNBC won't be used for the Olympics now? Somehow I doubt that's what they mean.
I think they just mean the main part won't be on cable, like opening & closing ceremonies.
You two are missing the point.
regular OTA channels are FREE....
Yes you pay for them on the cable sub or D* or DISH sub, but they are available to you free with a pair of rabbit ears if you wanted to pursue that route.
What they are trying to avoid is to have these events end up where people without cable /Sat can't get them.
Yes, there are people out there without either.
Free for the majority for people, n/a here for me, digital signals don't get here from Nashville, 75 miles away. In town PBS and a CW station are all that you can get OTA here.
I agree..and I feel that any programmer who accepts ad dollars should be prohibited from charging subscription fees. In this case their programming should be made available to all MVPDs free-of-charge.
That's not a very reasonable expectation, advertising dollars don't come close to subsidizing hardware and service costs needed to run a pay operation no matter what your meaning was (either directed at the production of individual channels/programs or the broadcast corporations). The advertising market likely couldn't support the kind of costs involved, not even close.
I am sure it sounds like a great idea as a consumer....
Still really seems like a goofy idea, remember how much people freaked out to the point that Congress and whined along with some consumers got involved when NFLN broadcast it's first games exclusively?
+1
Here's an idea let each league decide what is the best venue for their product and make it availble on that venue.
If it's OTA that's great if not and it's cable or Satellite and OTA's only can't get it that's tough.
No one is entitled to watch the events of thier Choice Free of Charge unless the Provider so chooses.
The entitlement comes from public money going into stadiums, I think thats the excuse that was used when people freaked out over the NFLN games.
