 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | That's what you get... ...when you let content providers become content delivery systems. Ooops! |
|
|
|
| Sure, cable will give that one up as soon as they get a fair bid @ NFL Sunday Ticket. Just because one company recklessly ponies up, while risking their own future, in order to lock every other competitor out of the bidding. Let these companies get access to that lineup and watch the migration begin. |
|
 HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:1 | Irony is that they let TW have them and I believe COX. This battle they will lose.. When?? God knows
Lee |
|
| reply to SLD
Couldnt agree more with this one. |
|
 runnoftPremium
join:2003-10-14
Deerfield, IL
kudos:1 | reply to SLD
Absolutely. Exclusive content agreements are NOT in the consumer's interest and should not be permitted on public utilities such as cable and satellite and OTA. |
|
3 edits | My thoughts.. "Absolutely agree", an argument I originally felt strongly for Verizon FIOS as well as any other provider, now a fair argument for AT&T.
I can understand if AT&T said they want Cablevision's News 12, thats their baby, homegrown sort of say.. another words they generate it themselves.
Think about it; how fair would it be to these different providers, much less for the customers, if say, FIOS bought media rights to the Mets, AT&T the yankees, well cablevision already has rights to the garden and everyone says, you can't have my HD content.. the customer would be cheated no matter what.
Don't know what to call it so i'll just call it open rights content.. content all customers expect to access no matter what. All customers, no matter what their provider is, should be able to say, for some reasonable price, they want the Mets, the Yankees at the best the given quality the content is available & their system could deliver. Fair competition means being able to access content on an even platform, my feeling.
I feel if Cablevision doesn't do this, they could create the above mess. Viewers, could you imagine having to live with a company that does not deliver to your satisfaction cause they are the only ones who will display a high quality version of your favorite sports team. I don't know how anyone can consider that fair competition. |
|
 MysticGogetaThe Robot DevilPremium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX | reply to SLD
They cry about this yet Direct TV is only one who gets NFL ticket that some BS right there.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight |
|
 mobModerhatedPremium
join:2000-10-07
 ·SureWest Internet
 ·Vonage
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to runnoft
said by runnoft:Absolutely. Exclusive content agreements are NOT in the consumer's interest and should not be permitted on public utilities such as cable and satellite and OTA. They aren't public utilities.
--
If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure - J. Danforth Quayle
Ich habe kein Mitleid - Me |
|
| reply to AzForumWatch
said by AzForumWatch :
Sure, cable will give that one up as soon as they get a fair bid @ NFL Sunday Ticket. Just because one company recklessly ponies up, while risking their own future, in order to lock every other competitor out of the bidding. Let these companies get access to that lineup and watch the migration begin.
Exactly! |
|
HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to mob
in NJ VZ and CV and the rest are considered so .They are watched over by the »www.bpu.state.nj.us/
Lee |
|
| reply to MysticGogeta
said by MysticGogeta:They cry about this yet Direct TV is only one who gets NFL ticket that some BS right there. Totally different situation. DirecTV paid for those rights above and beyond what anyone else was willing to offer.
They don't own the channels or the content.
CVC on the other hand, owns the channels and the delivery method and are picking and choosing who to negotiate with. |
|
| reply to MysticGogeta
The difference is DirecTV doesn't own the NFL. NFL has the right to sell broadcast rights to the highest bidder. |
|
