Poll: How do you feel about NFLST Blackouts
- Thread starter TheForce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 38
- Views 4K
- Status
The current network / affiliate system is so out of date and in need of a good revamp. I have a good post (if I say so myself) about my opinion on a great solution. I am trying to find it as it is rather old; this topic comes up every year about this time.
ADDED:
We don't need all these darn affiliate stations; heres all DBS and cable need to feed a nation of viewers:
ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, the merged UPN/WB and PBS - 6 networks, controlled by the NETWORK themselves; no affiliates. One feed each for each of the timezones covering the USA and its territories. Atlantic, Eastern, Central, Mountain, Pacific, Alaska, and Hawaii at most. That makes 7 zones times 6 networks; 42 total network feeds (at most) for DBS and cable to pull it ALL DOWN via satellite and allow their CUSTOMERS to CHOOSE and pay for what they want; none , some or ALL. Send local news, weather, sports and human interest back to the local newspapers and radio where is belongs (help improve their business). AND if any one local wants to foot the bill for a local area TV station, with local ads let THEM pay to provide a LOCAL ONLY independent product that does not need to ride the coat tails of the network. End the DMA system and reclaim all that wasted freq space and allow the end user to choose what they want, how to receive it and how much its worth. For users without cable or DBS, again, let some private person or group pay their own way to retrans.
ADDED:
We don't need all these darn affiliate stations; heres all DBS and cable need to feed a nation of viewers:
ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, the merged UPN/WB and PBS - 6 networks, controlled by the NETWORK themselves; no affiliates. One feed each for each of the timezones covering the USA and its territories. Atlantic, Eastern, Central, Mountain, Pacific, Alaska, and Hawaii at most. That makes 7 zones times 6 networks; 42 total network feeds (at most) for DBS and cable to pull it ALL DOWN via satellite and allow their CUSTOMERS to CHOOSE and pay for what they want; none , some or ALL. Send local news, weather, sports and human interest back to the local newspapers and radio where is belongs (help improve their business). AND if any one local wants to foot the bill for a local area TV station, with local ads let THEM pay to provide a LOCAL ONLY independent product that does not need to ride the coat tails of the network. End the DMA system and reclaim all that wasted freq space and allow the end user to choose what they want, how to receive it and how much its worth. For users without cable or DBS, again, let some private person or group pay their own way to retrans.
Last edited:
I must admit you do indeed live in a fantasy world if you think for a second that over 1500 television stations currently on the air, that are on the air (except for PBS) to make money, are going to suddenly vanish from the airwaves just to satisfy the wants and desires of satellite and cable viewers. I don't like the current DMA rules any more than you do, but let's be realistic about what is possible. What about those people who get TV only via an antenna (there are some folks who still do), how would they receive these magic network feeds? And end local news on television? Maybe we should stop television broadcasts all together and catch everything on the internet. Let's face it, the U.S. is a capitalist nation, and as such, the all mighty dollar will reign supreme when it comes to television. If anything, I would expect more tightening of restrictions in years to come so the broadcasters can rake in even more money. And just one note, I happen to live in an area that receives several markets off-the-air, I have a powerful roof antenna, and I still watch my local DMA most of the time. My thinking is that in most cases, the assigned DMA really is the popular choice among viewers. I know there are exceptions everywhere, and it is human nature to want more variety, but with the exception of local events, and some sporting events, most programs offered in one DMA are offered in neighboring DMAs. If local programs are of interest to a viewer, then I can see the desire to receive another DMA; otherwise, the local DMA should suffice. As for distant sports, it certainly is nice to have the sports subscriptions as a viable option. They may not be perfect, but I remember just 25 years ago when we would have killed to have access to almost all of the games. So let's please be realistic about television stations, networks, the FCC and the like, because believe it or not, TV is far better than it was just a short time ago. We have more choices now than we could possibly watch, and have access to many more distant options than ever. And it is because of these added choices and options, that have shrunk the pie for the local broadcasters, causing them to enforce their local territories to help maintain their reduced piece of the pie. But here's a secret...they are not going away any time soon!
I didnt say it would ever happen, but it sure would work and can show that the way it is now is a joke.
My assigned DMA is 300 miles away where the weather is usually much different... 3 DMA's much closer that are a better fit... I agree with charper1, do away with the current system...
Defense, Emergency & Local Issues
One reason for local broadcasting is the need to get information to people locally. Here, when a Hurricane is about to and then hits, local news is invaluable to getting information to people before & after the emergency.
One can imagine even worse emergency scenarios where local TV stations or even networks might be knocked off the air (such as an attack on a City). Having local stations all over the country with access to satellites ensures that anyone with a dish and power or a generator can be informed. For example, if locals or networks were knocked out in an emergency, D* could switch its subscribers in the affected area to neighboring or other locals or networks which are functioning.
As for the NFL, the Miami-Washington game was broadcast OTA and on NFLST; I was surprised.
One reason for local broadcasting is the need to get information to people locally. Here, when a Hurricane is about to and then hits, local news is invaluable to getting information to people before & after the emergency.
One can imagine even worse emergency scenarios where local TV stations or even networks might be knocked off the air (such as an attack on a City). Having local stations all over the country with access to satellites ensures that anyone with a dish and power or a generator can be informed. For example, if locals or networks were knocked out in an emergency, D* could switch its subscribers in the affected area to neighboring or other locals or networks which are functioning.
As for the NFL, the Miami-Washington game was broadcast OTA and on NFLST; I was surprised.
I do agree with local TV, radio, etc being handy in a local crisis, BUT that really should not have anything to do with "piggy-backing" of NETWORK TV programming. I am advocating the separation of the two into separate entities.
Last edited:
I gave up on ST several years ago. I don't live anywhere close to an NFL town, unless you say 170 miles is close. Yet I would get blacked out here and there with no rhyme nor reason. I never knew until game time what games I could see, and I'm just not going to put up with that for for what it costs. I can go to a nice sports bar, buy dinner and a few brews and whoop it up with my friends on those days when it is a game that I know that I can't see a game that I really want to see and be a lot better off in the wallet than with ST....and have a a full tummy!!!
No doubt about the purpose of blackouts serving the teams when the games don't sell out. I understand that. The point I am making is there is and should be a difference between the FREE watching TV of a game and when you pay for a ticket!
When I watch a game on FREE broadcast TV, How much do I pay the team and the NFL? Nothing!
But you can't post to this board with the statement that when I pay the huge D* fee that they get that that money is pocketed entirely by D*. D* pays a blanket fee to the NFL for that contract and takes a risk on turning a profit on NFLSTickets sold for the season. They have to offer some value added incentive for subscribers to buy that season ticket. It IS a ticket to watch and YES, I do understand in the fine print they have this rule that zall the games you intended to watch may be blacked out and you may not receive a refund. Mr, Kennedy, this is not about your 2000 tickets for $5 each at the last minute. This is about the ethics of selling something and then not delivering. It's the same as we have with over booking at the airlines. I pay in advance for a seat. I arrive on time and am told my seat is sold. At least the airline makes huge concessions for their mistake. The last time it happened to me I was put up in a fine hotel, given a meal voucher, a free ticket the next day to my destination, and a free round trip ticket for two anywhere in the US. What does the NFL and DirecTV do for me when the ticket I paid for is blacked out. Huh? Can't hear you? When it happened to me for the third time I called and was basically told to go F myself by D* CSR because by the time I got to him he had had it up to his eyeballs from complaints that afternoon about blackouts.
The main difference here is FREE TV gets blacked out and that's fine. BUT when I pay for a ticket and am told my ticket I paid for is no good, that is just wrong!
I suppose the 25% of the respondents who said I should be blacked out when I pay for the ticket are the very reason why D* will not negotiate a better deal for you. The see this and feel it doesn't matter. The ones who are in that 25% group, Would you allow an airline to get away with selling you a ticket and then not let you have your seat with no restitution? Probably so.
Nobody can complain about blackouts you say? Really now. What the heck do you think this thread is all about? Do you really believe that just because the NFL rips you off that you should have no complaints? The entire point here is to get D* to negotiate a better deal for all NFLST buyers. If you don't ask, you'll never get. If you fail to complain about being ripped off, then you deserve to pay $600 for your season tickets next year! and $800 the next.
Hey Duchen, charper1- This is about NFLST not local affiliates importance. But I do have some thoughts on that too so if you want to start a different thread, I think it could be interesting discussion, not that this hasn't come up before. It just needs updating take care.
I think more of the blame lies between the league(s) the NAB, and the FCC. The management/assignment DMAs and the control of said "markets" hardly fall into the lap of DBS to negotiate "deals"; they simply enforce what they are told to do by law. As we all know the "ticket packages" are merely bulk packaged retransmissions of network affiliate local signals, so they do kind of go hand-in-hand. I agree that DirecTV could hire a lobbyist to fight for changes in the laws; and I am sure they already /have/do.
I'm going to start a poll thread entitled "How do you feel about ending the discount bus fare for war widows program?"
charper1-
Do you know this is a fact? That the FCC requires they charge or do not charge for NFLST when they black out a game.
My knowledge of this was the blackout was a contractural issue developed USING DMAs as a guideline between the networks, their affiliates and in this case DirecTV as well, If this is so, then YES D* would be able to negotiate a contract that permitted them to 1. offer a refund for the game they blacked out and better 2. exempt them from blackout on the basis that it is a paid to watch game. If it is as you suspect, the blackout rule for DirecTV or any dbs service would be published in the CFR's and I should do some homework on that.
I really do see this as an issue where DirecTV is charging for a service and then not delivering it and offering no refund. I do not see it an obligation for DirecTV to lobby the FCC IF this is a regulation they have to charge and offer no refunds for blackout. If you bought a PPV movie and paid for it, then it was determined that your community had some regulation that forbid you to watch it ( as does some communities on adult programming)and they blacked it out, I'm certain you'd be on the phone requesting a refund EVEN IF in the tiny tiny print it said this movie may be blacked out in your community due to adult movie standards regulations.
Again, my goal is that I would like to see everyone who bought tickets to watch the games see it/ them, and second, if you were not permitted to see the game you bought tickets to at least D* would give you a refund for that. And third, I feel, since this is a contract between D* and the NFL to air the games in a closed Paid viewing, that DirecTV should negotiate to make blackouts exempt from the NFLST in the next contract.
So far the only valid argument I have seen to keep blackouts in place for NFLST was from Mr Kennedy, who claimed he was an owner. I suspect he means team owner, or at least someone who has a huge vested interest in the profitability of a team's stadium sales. From his perspective, the more money he can make the better it is for him. I can respect that, but don't have to accept that without a negotiation for a better deal for the fans on DirecTV.
Do you know this is a fact? That the FCC requires they charge or do not charge for NFLST when they black out a game.
My knowledge of this was the blackout was a contractural issue developed USING DMAs as a guideline between the networks, their affiliates and in this case DirecTV as well, If this is so, then YES D* would be able to negotiate a contract that permitted them to 1. offer a refund for the game they blacked out and better 2. exempt them from blackout on the basis that it is a paid to watch game. If it is as you suspect, the blackout rule for DirecTV or any dbs service would be published in the CFR's and I should do some homework on that.
I really do see this as an issue where DirecTV is charging for a service and then not delivering it and offering no refund. I do not see it an obligation for DirecTV to lobby the FCC IF this is a regulation they have to charge and offer no refunds for blackout. If you bought a PPV movie and paid for it, then it was determined that your community had some regulation that forbid you to watch it ( as does some communities on adult programming)and they blacked it out, I'm certain you'd be on the phone requesting a refund EVEN IF in the tiny tiny print it said this movie may be blacked out in your community due to adult movie standards regulations.
Again, my goal is that I would like to see everyone who bought tickets to watch the games see it/ them, and second, if you were not permitted to see the game you bought tickets to at least D* would give you a refund for that. And third, I feel, since this is a contract between D* and the NFL to air the games in a closed Paid viewing, that DirecTV should negotiate to make blackouts exempt from the NFLST in the next contract.
So far the only valid argument I have seen to keep blackouts in place for NFLST was from Mr Kennedy, who claimed he was an owner. I suspect he means team owner, or at least someone who has a huge vested interest in the profitability of a team's stadium sales. From his perspective, the more money he can make the better it is for him. I can respect that, but don't have to accept that without a negotiation for a better deal for the fans on DirecTV.
Here's my "homework:
This is the original proposal for rule change
It was later passed and is described here:
The Sports Blackout Rule protects a sports team’s or league’s exclusive distribution rights to a local sporting event. The sports blackout rule applies only if a local TV broadcast station is not carrying the local sporting event. If a local TV broadcast station does not have permission to carry the local game, then no other broadcaster’s signal displaying the game can be shown in the protected local blackout zone. The rule applies to a satellite carrier’s retransmission of nationally distributed superstations and network stations. Id.
The new rules apply to both C-Band (large dish) and DBS (small dish) satellite service providers.
Understand the key point here is the NFL has control and the NFL is the one who triggers the permission or no permission. This is why the rule is applied differently in each community (that is another debate) But the FCC did rule in this decade that when the NFL forbids a local FREE TV station from carriage, that no other station or DBS or C Band service may carry it either.
I don't know how this allows certain sports bars to carry the game unless the sports bar had some closed circuit service or they were using a hacked D* card.
So, in conclusion to Charper1's point, this regulation would prevent D* from the negotiation with the NFL but there was nothing found so far that makes the revenue charged by D* for NFLST games blacked out a non-refundable charge.
At this point the FCC rule discovered would make the poll moot. ( I admit when I am wrong) However, not included in this poll is the question about DirecTV refunds for games they are required to black out. In effect, this leaves the NFL out of it as far as the way NFLST is sold, re blackouts. There would be no purpose in negotiation
Since the poll serves no purpose, I suggest it be closed.
This is the original proposal for rule change
It was later passed and is described here:
The Sports Blackout Rule protects a sports team’s or league’s exclusive distribution rights to a local sporting event. The sports blackout rule applies only if a local TV broadcast station is not carrying the local sporting event. If a local TV broadcast station does not have permission to carry the local game, then no other broadcaster’s signal displaying the game can be shown in the protected local blackout zone. The rule applies to a satellite carrier’s retransmission of nationally distributed superstations and network stations. Id.
The new rules apply to both C-Band (large dish) and DBS (small dish) satellite service providers.
Understand the key point here is the NFL has control and the NFL is the one who triggers the permission or no permission. This is why the rule is applied differently in each community (that is another debate) But the FCC did rule in this decade that when the NFL forbids a local FREE TV station from carriage, that no other station or DBS or C Band service may carry it either.
I don't know how this allows certain sports bars to carry the game unless the sports bar had some closed circuit service or they were using a hacked D* card.
So, in conclusion to Charper1's point, this regulation would prevent D* from the negotiation with the NFL but there was nothing found so far that makes the revenue charged by D* for NFLST games blacked out a non-refundable charge.
At this point the FCC rule discovered would make the poll moot. ( I admit when I am wrong) However, not included in this poll is the question about DirecTV refunds for games they are required to black out. In effect, this leaves the NFL out of it as far as the way NFLST is sold, re blackouts. There would be no purpose in negotiation
Since the poll serves no purpose, I suggest it be closed.
Yes, I've never figured that out. I'm a Steelers fan. The two years that I had ST I would not get a game of theirs and then would find out it would be on at one of the bars down the road also using D*. What the heck is up with that?
I'm sorry but its a little deeper than that. Fox pays the nfl for the game, your local station pays fox for the game, adver pay your station preminum prices for air time during the game because it is the only channel the game can be view on. Why would the local station give up thier exclusive rights to broadcast a game they paid for?
- Status
