Re: ... in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20966866 en Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:55:06 EDT Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:55:06 EDT Re: ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20967382 cdru :
said by jarthur31 See Profile :

Not true! The could get at least double that if they allowed cable companies to broadcast or even sell directly sell to consumers (via PC viewing).
Do you have any actual proof? Or are you just pulling numbers out of the air?

Allowing other companies rights would result in DirectTV only bidding at a fraction of what they pay now. The other providers also aren't going to submit bids in the range that DirecTV does now.

And for all providers, the cost for providing the more or less fixed number of games each week will be constant. But if they only have a portion of the total number of subscribers, the cost per subscriber also goes up. That means in the end either customers are going to pay more, or the cable companies are going to make less. Which do you think is going to happen?

There is 0 chance that the NFL is going to give up $700m/year in revenues, which is exactly what you are saying they are doing by not allowing multiple providers. I'll concede that they might make more with multiple providers, but that also comes with additional headaches. Instead of 1 contract every couple of years that has to be renegotiated, you now are dealing with every MSO.

The NFL has also expressed concerns about protecting local networks and stations...the two things that matter more for TV rights. NFL:ST viewers don't count for Nelson ratings. The more people that subscribe to NFL:ST, the lower the Nelson ratings could be. This results in lower advertising revenues as advertising rates are set based on the ratings. Whether this is a red herring, I don't know. Out of market games aren't going to have a huge impact on ratings, and national games (Sunday & Monday nights) aren't available on NFL:ST either.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20967382 Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:11:09 EDT Re: ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20966866 subman87 :
The current contract between DirecTV & the NFL expires 2010.
--
" more is lost by indecision than wrong decision."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20966866 Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:41:03 EDT Re: ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20966030 jarthur31 : Not true! The could get at least double that if they allowed cable companies to broadcast or even sell directly sell to consumers (via PC viewing). ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20966030 Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:35:01 EDT Re: ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20965419 Joe12345678 :
said by PandaB See Profile :

They need to loosen their grip from DirecTV and allow more networks to purchase the NFL Sunday Ticket.
In canada you can get it one more then 1 provider.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20965419 Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:15:32 EDT Re: ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20965352 cdru :
said by PandaB See Profile :

They need to loosen their grip from DirecTV and allow more networks to purchase the NFL Sunday Ticket.
Capitalism 101. They go with where the money is at. They got the best offer from DirecTV with an exclusive deal. It's not that DirecTV has an ill-gotten grip on the NFL, they just put in the highest bid (at over $700m a year). And it's not that NFL has a grip on DirecTV...they just have a contract to follow.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20965352 Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:55:41 EDT ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20965287 PandaB : They need to loosen their grip from DirecTV and allow more networks to purchase the NFL Sunday Ticket.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20965287 Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:43:05 EDT