NDBUFFCUSEFAN Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Not to hi-jack this thread..but how do you do this? If you hook your laptop up to your HD tv, can you watch anything on the computer, using your TV as a monitor? I tried this once, at my sisters house (didn't have a laptop of my own at the time), but had no luck. Can you do this, and watch, say, Youtube videos on your 46' HDTV? Is it as simple as just running an HDMI cable from your laptop to your tv? I have an HDMI adapter that plugs into my laptop, I then run the HDMI cable to my TV, I hook up my internet directly into the laptop as well to maximize the speed. After that I head to firstrowsports.eu and find the sporting event I want to watch.
Buftex Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) I have an HDMI adapter that plugs into my laptop, I then run the HDMI cable to my TV, I hook up my internet directly into the laptop as well to maximize the speed. After that I head to firstrowsports.eu and find the sporting event I want to watch. Thanks for the info...let me ask though (forgive my techno-ignorance) if you use wireless cable for the lap-top, do you still have to run actual cords into the laptop to get internet reception? You say this increases the speed, do you mean that the picture doesn't buffer and lag, as is common with some of these feeds? I have been subscribing to NHL Center Ice and a half season of the NBA package every year...given that both my teams will likely suck this year (Sabres and Celtics) I would love to save a little money...I guess I need an HDMI adapter. I use firtstrow from time to time...frustrating thing about is the tendency to shut-down before a game is actually over. Happened a few times during Celtics games last season (missed a few "fantastic finishes")...for NFL, I subscribe to NFL Rewind...it is pretty cool. Granted, you can't watch the games live, but I prefer to go to the bar and watch with those simalarly afflicted...then I rewatch the game, in chunks, throughout the week...picture is perfect! Edited July 8, 2013 by Buftex
CodeMonkey Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) Thanks for the info...let me ask though (forgive my techno-ignorance) if you use wireless cable for the lap-top, do you still have to run actual cords into the laptop to get internet reception? You say this increases the speed, do you mean that the picture doesn't buffer and lag, as is common with some of these feeds? I have been subscribing to NHL Center Ice and a half season of the NBA package every year...given that both my teams will likely suck this year (Sabres and Celtics) I would love to save a little money...I guess I need an HDMI adapter. I use firtstrow from time to time...frustrating thing about is the tendency to shut-down before a game is actually over. Happened a few times during Celtics games last season (missed a few "fantastic finishes")...for NFL, I subscribe to NFL Rewind...it is pretty cool. Granted, you can't watch the games live, but I prefer to go to the bar and watch with those simalarly afflicted...then I rewatch the game, in chunks, throughout the week...picture is perfect! The HDMI has no bearing on your internet connection except that generally for throughput wired is better than wireless because it is faster and less prone to dropped packets, It can make a difference for things like netflix where it is trying to stream HD (or close to it) content. But for things like firstrow or Justin if you have wireless N it is fine as these servers don't try to push anything even close to HD down to you. But I use netflix with wireless N and the only issues I have are with netflix, not the wireless. The pauses while the buffering happens is generally due to the data coming from the server (firstrow, justin, or whatever), not your wireless (assuming you have a fairly modern wireless router and laptop). So hardwiring your laptop to the router is unlikely to affect the buffering issues. I have given up on the internet feeds. I guess I am too spoiled watching HD content. I wait and watch blacked out games during the next week or pull the network feed directly from a satellite (complicated and time consuming process to setup even if you are tech-savvy). Unless someone like firstrow starts streaming [near] HD content, which is highly unlikely, that's how it is likely to stay for me. Or until the government finally forces King Roger to drop the blackouts. As for getting the video to your TV once you have the HDMI connection, usually I set the HDMI out to be the second monitor on the laptop, set the resolution of that "monitor" (your TV in this case) to match the resolution of your TV, drag the browser that has firstrow or Hulu or whatever to that second monitor and press the "full screen" button on the video window (now on your TV) . In Windows, set the audio to go out the HDMI instead of the laptops speakers (assuming you want audio to come out of the TV and not the laptop). Open your beer and enjoy Hope this helps. Edited July 8, 2013 by CodeMonkey
Orton's Arm Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Back when the NFL first began televising its games, there was concern among owners that people would stop going to games; and just watch them on t.v. instead. That was back in the days when ticket prices were family friendly; and when players didn't earn that much more than the rest of us. The blackout rule was put in place to reassure owners nervous about the whole television experiment. Today, television is no longer an experiment. NFL teams derive a very large portion of their revenue from television contracts. The NFL could operate itself as a very profitable league with television revenue alone. (Though player salaries would have to be adjusted to reflect the loss of all other revenue sources.) For the most part, ticket prices have ceased to be family-friendly; and concession prices have become a form of rape. If we as consumers become less likely to attend games in-person, that behavior change would no longer represent a threat to the NFL's business model. The only real threat is to the owners' + players' ability to gouge us consumers of as much money as possible. (I'm lumping players in here because they reap a large share of the rewards of the gouging process.) That gouging benefits no one at all--except the owners and players. Therefore, the blackout rule itself is harmful to everyone, with the possible exception of those doing the gouging. Normally, a privately owned business should be able to do as it likes. But there are two reasons why the NFL is different from an ordinary business. - Taxpayer subsidies - The monopoly status of the NFL If we as taxpayers are helping to subsidize millionaire players and billionaire owners, then we also have the right to dictate terms and conditions. "If you don't like our terms and conditions," we can tell them, "then we'll pass a law to make it illegal for any state or local government to subsidize an NFL team in any way." The monopoly status of the NFL is also very relevant here. The intent of the blackout rule is to reduce competition. Specifically, the NFL is attempting to take away alternatives to watching the games in-person. The objective of reducing competition is to be able to sell out stadiums, without having to reduce ticket or concession prices. Normally monopolies can (and should) be regulated, specifically to prevent them from engaging in anti-competitive business practices. This particular anti-competitive business practice harms consumers; both by reducing choice, and by allowing the NFL to further inflate its prices.
NDBUFFCUSEFAN Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Thanks for the info...let me ask though (forgive my techno-ignorance) if you use wireless cable for the lap-top, do you still have to run actual cords into the laptop to get internet reception? You say this increases the speed, do you mean that the picture doesn't buffer and lag, as is common with some of these feeds? I have been subscribing to NHL Center Ice and a half season of the NBA package every year...given that both my teams will likely suck this year (Sabres and Celtics) I would love to save a little money...I guess I need an HDMI adapter. I use firtstrow from time to time...frustrating thing about is the tendency to shut-down before a game is actually over. Happened a few times during Celtics games last season (missed a few "fantastic finishes")...for NFL, I subscribe to NFL Rewind...it is pretty cool. Granted, you can't watch the games live, but I prefer to go to the bar and watch with those simalarly afflicted...then I rewatch the game, in chunks, throughout the week...picture is perfect! The HDMI has no bearing on your internet connection except that generally for throughput wired is better than wireless because it is faster and less prone to dropped packets, It can make a difference for things like netflix where it is trying to stream HD (or close to it) content. But for things like firstrow or Justin if you have wireless N it is fine as these servers don't try to push anything even close to HD down to you. But I use netflix with wireless N and the only issues I have are with netflix, not the wireless. The pauses while the buffering happens is generally due to the data coming from the server (firstrow, justin, or whatever), not your wireless (assuming you have a fairly modern wireless router and laptop). So hardwiring your laptop to the router is unlikely to affect the buffering issues. I have given up on the internet feeds. I guess I am too spoiled watching HD content. I wait and watch blacked out games during the next week or pull the network feed directly from a satellite (complicated and time consuming process to setup even if you are tech-savvy). Unless someone like firstrow starts streaming [near] HD content, which is highly unlikely, that's how it is likely to stay for me. Or until the government finally forces King Roger to drop the blackouts. As for getting the video to your TV once you have the HDMI connection, usually I set the HDMI out to be the second monitor on the laptop, set the resolution of that "monitor" (your TV in this case) to match the resolution of your TV, drag the browser that has firstrow or Hulu or whatever to that second monitor and press the "full screen" button on the video window (now on your TV) . In Windows, set the audio to go out the HDMI instead of the laptops speakers (assuming you want audio to come out of the TV and not the laptop). Open your beer and enjoy Hope this helps. I have done tests with internet plugged in vs wifi and the speed tests have shown that with the internet plugged in directly there is a significant difference. For example if I try to play my brother in NHL '13 over wifi there is a terrible lag but plugged in it works perfectly. I am by no means an expert and I am just going off of what I have done personally. I got rid of Direct TV a year ago, watched the NFL using the PS3 app with my brothers password, it worked well enough for the $$ I was saving, I bought the NHL Gamecenter which worked perfectly with my laptop, smartphone, and PS3. For college football I used firstrowsports which worked well enough. This coming season I will most likely use my brothers password and watch the NFL through my PS3.
CodeMonkey Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) Back when the NFL first began televising its games, there was concern among owners that people would stop going to games; and just watch them on t.v. instead. That was back in the days when ticket prices were family friendly; and when players didn't earn that much more than the rest of us. The blackout rule was put in place to reassure owners nervous about the whole television experiment. Today, television is no longer an experiment. NFL teams derive a very large portion of their revenue from television contracts. The NFL could operate itself as a very profitable league with television revenue alone. (Though player salaries would have to be adjusted to reflect the loss of all other revenue sources.) For the most part, ticket prices have ceased to be family-friendly; and concession prices have become a form of rape. If we as consumers become less likely to attend games in-person, that behavior change would no longer represent a threat to the NFL's business model. The only real threat is to the owners' + players' ability to gouge us consumers of as much money as possible. (I'm lumping players in here because they reap a large share of the rewards of the gouging process.) That gouging benefits no one at all--except the owners and players. Therefore, the blackout rule itself is harmful to everyone, with the possible exception of those doing the gouging. Normally, a privately owned business should be able to do as it likes. But there are two reasons why the NFL is different from an ordinary business. - Taxpayer subsidies - The monopoly status of the NFL If we as taxpayers are helping to subsidize millionaire players and billionaire owners, then we also have the right to dictate terms and conditions. "If you don't like our terms and conditions," we can tell them, "then we'll pass a law to make it illegal for any state or local government to subsidize an NFL team in any way." The monopoly status of the NFL is also very relevant here. The intent of the blackout rule is to reduce competition. Specifically, the NFL is attempting to take away alternatives to watching the games in-person. The objective of reducing competition is to be able to sell out stadiums, without having to reduce ticket or concession prices. Normally monopolies can (and should) be regulated, specifically to prevent them from engaging in anti-competitive business practices. This particular anti-competitive business practice harms consumers; both by reducing choice, and by allowing the NFL to further inflate its prices. Well said. I also wonder how effective the blackout rule is anyway. How many people that would watch the game on TV get a ticket (not from a scalper, but from the team) and go to blacked out games.? If I decided to go, which is unlikely in the extreme, I would get a ticket from a scalper or from stubhub. Never from the Bills. So it makes me wonder if the blackout rule has much of an impact on team ticket sales at all. I have done tests with internet plugged in vs wifi and the speed tests have shown that with the internet plugged in directly there is a significant difference. For example if I try to play my brother in NHL '13 over wifi there is a terrible lag but plugged in it works perfectly. I am by no means an expert and I am just going off of what I have done personally. There is a huge difference between watching low-def streamed video from a dedicated server and playing a real-time online game with other human players. If it is easy to get the wired connection to the laptop that will always be better. But my experience with streamed video, even near HD from places like netflix, is that wireless N is generally more than sufficient (caveat: assuming 10 other people aren't streaming video or playing online games via wireless while you are watching the streaming video ). Edited July 8, 2013 by CodeMonkey
maddenboy Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) Requiring a total sell out of tickets three days in advance has always seemed a bit harsh - especially when you consider Rich stadium had a capacity of 80,000+ (largest crowd was 80,368 10/4/92 Bills Vs Miami), and a lot of large market teams had stadiums well below that. Sure, The Ralph now only seats 73,000, yet here's a list of current stadiums with lower seating capacity: University of Phoenix Stadium 63,400 Soldier Field, Chicago 61,500 Reliant Stadium, Houston 71,054 Raymond James Stadium, Tampa 65,908 Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego 70,561 Paul Brown Stadium, Cincinnati 65,535 Oakland Co. Coliseum 53,200 Mall of America Field, Minneapolis 64,121 M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore 71,008 Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis 62,421 LP Field, Nashville 69,143 Lincoln Financial Field, Philly 68,532 Heinz Field, Pittsburgh 65,050 Gillette Stadium, Foxborough 68,756 Georgia Dome, Atlanta 71,228 Ford Field, Detroit 65,000 EverBank Field, Jacksonville 67,246 Edward Jones Dome, St Louis 66,965 Century Link Field, Seattle 67,000 Candlestick Park, San Francisco 69,732 Plus new stadiums for San Fran (68,500); Minnesota (65,000); Atlanta (65,000) will all be smaller than The Ralph if and when they're built. I think the NFL should lift the blackout for all stadiums when they sell the same number of tickets equal to that of the team playing each week with the SMALLEST STADIUM's capacity. That would be parity. So, for example if Oakland is playing then no team would have a blackout if they sold 53,200 tickets. If Oakland isn't playing and Chicago is - then the number grows to 61,500 tickets. Why the hell should Buffalo get blacked out after selling 71,500 tickets and a city like Chicago gets free tv with 10,000 fewer tickets sold? It actually HELPS a team like buffalo, with a bigger stadium. A team with a bigger stadium capacity can make lots more money with a sellout. I dont think Mr. Ralph would be happy if selling 75% of his seats were considered a "sellout." He wants to get paid. It actually hurts the citizens of the local market if the team has a bigger stadium. But not the team itself. Mr. Ralph couldnt care less if the game is blacked out. He wants your asses in the seats, and he wants you to pay for it. i would love to know Mr. Ralph's position on this. It would be very telling. Edited July 8, 2013 by maddenboy
Metal Man Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) At the very least the blackout zone needs to be reduced from 75 miles. That figure is based on analog TV coverage. Digital coverage is half that. The blackout zone should be no more than 40 miles. Why the hell should Buffalo get blacked out after selling 71,500 tickets and a city like Chicago gets free tv with 10,000 fewer tickets sold? These two arguments seem to be the strongest for how the black out rule is completely backwards or at least outdated and in need of revision but no one really seems to talk about it whenever these articles pop up. The digital signal thing really annoys me. I live in Syracuse which is also blacked out because way back in the day some eastern part of Rochester could supposedly receive the Syracuse CBS affiliate. I can't imagine that is true anymore but I don't expect the FCC to revisit it. Also because Rome and Utica get their CBS from Syracuse they also black out. Rome is almost 200 miles away from the stadium. Edited July 8, 2013 by Metal Man
CodeMonkey Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 It actually HELPS a team like buffalo, with a bigger stadium. A team with a bigger stadium capacity can make lots more money with a sellout. I dont think Mr. Ralph would be happy if selling 75% of his seats were considered a "sellout." He wants to get paid. It actually hurts the citizens of the local market if the team has a bigger stadium. But not the team itself. Mr. Ralph couldnt care less if the game is blacked out. He wants your asses in the seats, and he wants you to pay for it. i would love to know Mr. Ralph's position on this. It would be very telling. Not sure I buy your premise. Ticket sales money is dwarfed by the TV revenue. And Mr. Wilson doesn't even get all of the ticket revenue, it is shared with the visiting team. More butts in the seats means higher beer and hotdog sales I guess, but to a Billionaire like Mr. Wilson I can't imagine that money is more than a blip on his radar. The bottom line I think is that even if the blackout rule isn't making the owners much money, it certainly isn't costing them any, So they have no reason to get rid of it if they do not have to. And right now at least they do not have to. I hope McCain can change that, though I am not hopeful.
maddenboy Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) I dunno. At some point, the logical extension of this is "I want the government to gimme free stuff." I understand the arguments about taxpayers funding stadia and the govt. monopoly. But they have a product that we love and we are willing to pay for. Why should the government be involved? Isnt the govt. supposed to protect free enterprise, and not guide the market? If consumers stop buying the product, the NFL will adjust itself to keep making money. But, if consumers keep buying, that means we like it (or dont hate it) so THAT is the free market doing its work. Sure, i'd like to watch free games too. But not at the expense of having the government FORCE the NFL to give me free stuff. Edited July 8, 2013 by maddenboy
RyanC883 Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Requiring a total sell out of tickets three days in advance has always seemed a bit harsh - especially when you consider Rich stadium had a capacity of 80,000+ (largest crowd was 80,368 10/4/92 Bills Vs Miami), and a lot of large market teams had stadiums well below that. Sure, The Ralph now only seats 73,000, yet here's a list of current stadiums with lower seating capacity: University of Phoenix Stadium 63,400 Soldier Field, Chicago 61,500 Reliant Stadium, Houston 71,054 Raymond James Stadium, Tampa 65,908 Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego 70,561 Paul Brown Stadium, Cincinnati 65,535 Oakland Co. Coliseum 53,200 Mall of America Field, Minneapolis 64,121 M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore 71,008 Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis 62,421 LP Field, Nashville 69,143 Lincoln Financial Field, Philly 68,532 Heinz Field, Pittsburgh 65,050 Gillette Stadium, Foxborough 68,756 Georgia Dome, Atlanta 71,228 Ford Field, Detroit 65,000 EverBank Field, Jacksonville 67,246 Edward Jones Dome, St Louis 66,965 Century Link Field, Seattle 67,000 Candlestick Park, San Francisco 69,732 Plus new stadiums for San Fran (68,500); Minnesota (65,000); Atlanta (65,000) will all be smaller than The Ralph if and when they're built. I think the NFL should lift the blackout for all stadiums when they sell the same number of tickets equal to that of the team playing each week with the SMALLEST STADIUM's capacity. That would be parity. So, for example if Oakland is playing then no team would have a blackout if they sold 53,200 tickets. If Oakland isn't playing and Chicago is - then the number grows to 61,500 tickets. Why the hell should Buffalo get blacked out after selling 71,500 tickets and a city like Chicago gets free tv with 10,000 fewer tickets sold? Love the idea. Currently the system penalizes teams for building big stadiums. The Steelers could easily fit 80K+ in every week, but fears of a blackout may have played some role in preventing this.
Orton's Arm Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 I dunno. At some point, the logical extension of this is "I want the government to gimme free stuff." I understand the arguments about taxpayers funding stadia and the govt. monopoly. But they have a product that we love and we are willing to pay for. Why should the government be involved? Isnt the govt. supposed to protect free enterprise, and not guide the market? If consumers stop buying the product, the NFL will adjust itself to keep making money. But, if consumers keep buying, that means we like it (or dont hate it) so THAT is the free market doing its work. Sure, i'd like to watch free games too. But not at the expense of having the government FORCE the NFL to give me free stuff. > But, if consumers keep buying, that means we like it (or dont hate it) so THAT is the free market doing its work. Yes and no. There is just one credible professional football league--the NFL--which means the NFL has a lot of market power. On the other hand, consumers are divided: we "negotiate" with the NFL as individuals; not as a collective whole. In an ideal free market, there should be both a large numbers of producers and a large number of consumers. For example, a large number of wheat farmers each selling a commodity product (grade A wheat), to a large number of buyers. Arguably professional football is a natural monopoly, much like cable television or land line phone service. Any given monopoly will attempt to charge higher prices than would have obtained in an ideal free market. I don't see a logical way to break up the NFL into several different competing football leagues. But if the NFL isn't going to be broken up, it will have too much power in its dealings with consumers. Government involvement can legitimately be used to reduce some of that power. Taking away the blackout rule is an obvious place to start; because the sole purpose of that rule is anti-competitive. By offering games on both T.V. and in stadiums, the NFL is competing against itself. The NFL doesn't want that competition to result in lower prices for stadium seats. Which is why it uses the blackout rule to eliminate this competition in markets with the most downward price pressure on tickets. (That is, those markets which have the hardest time selling out.) Any time someone becomes the owner of a monopoly, there's an opportunity to collect an "economic rent." Economic rent means monies collected over and above whatever would have been the case, had there been perfect competition. NFL owners and players are collecting massive economic rents. If there were, say, 100 different competing football leagues, each of which had a team in Buffalo, and each about the same size/credibility level, there's no way any one of those leagues could get away with the high ticket prices, insanely high concessions prices, very long commercial breaks, or other forms of gouging we're used to seeing. Each league would act like the NFL did back in the early '60s, back before it had obtained the power it had today. We as consumers do not owe NFL owners or players massive economic rents.
PromoTheRobot Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) http://www.twincitie...l-over-blackout Oh, here we go. The NFL is suggesting if the blackout was lifted they can't keep games on free TV. (play sad little violins here) Yeaaaaaaah right. I'd like to see the NFL pull their games of the Big 4 networks. PTR Edited July 8, 2013 by PromoTheRobot
Taro T Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 It actually HELPS a team like buffalo, with a bigger stadium. A team with a bigger stadium capacity can make lots more money with a sellout. I dont think Mr. Ralph would be happy if selling 75% of his seats were considered a "sellout." He wants to get paid. It actually hurts the citizens of the local market if the team has a bigger stadium. But not the team itself. Mr. Ralph couldnt care less if the game is blacked out. He wants your asses in the seats, and he wants you to pay for it. i would love to know Mr. Ralph's position on this. It would be very telling. These two arguments seem to be the strongest for how the black out rule is completely backwards or at least outdated and in need of revision but no one really seems to talk about it whenever these articles pop up. The digital signal thing really annoys me. I live in Syracuse which is also blacked out because way back in the day some eastern part of Rochester could supposedly receive the Syracuse CBS affiliate. I can't imagine that is true anymore but I don't expect the FCC to revisit it. Also because Rome and Utica get their CBS from Syracuse they also black out. Rome is almost 200 miles away from the stadium. When the AFC moved from NBC to CBS they rechecked the broadcast areas for each of the municipalities and found that a VERY small sliver of the Syracuse TV market fell w/in 75 miles of Rich Stadium. The sliver was on 1 of the Finger Lakes and at the time had all of 8 houses and 1 closed restaurant. Because of that sliver, the blackout was on for Syracuse. (Side note: Baton Rouge fell victim to NO's blackout that same year for essentially the same reason. Don't know if that one's been lifted or not.) The next year, that sliver of land was reclassified to the Ra-cha-cha market but Ralph and the Bills wouldn't budge on pulling Syracuse out of the blackout zone. This really stunk for me as I could get the Syracuse stations over the air though I'm in the Ra-cha-cha market. As for Ralph not caring about the blackout; that's BS. He'd extend the range of the blackout if he could (as he's done in the past).
eme123 Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Government should just stay out of the issue altogether. If they don't like how a private business handles their customers then stop giving the private business money!
CodeMonkey Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) http://www.twincitie...l-over-blackout Oh, here we go. The NFL is suggesting if the blackout was lifted they can't keep games on free TV. (play sad little violins here) Yeaaaaaaah right. I'd like to see the NFL pull their games of the Big 4 networks. PTR Wow, this is ass backwards even for the NFL owners ... Owners claim it has helped sustain attendance growth over the past decade and allowed more fans to watch games by reducing the blackout rate to 6 percent last season from a high of 56 percent in 1977. Soo according to the owners, the blackout rule has increased fans ability to watch games on TV because the number of blacked out games has decreased? Seriously?? But I will tell you what ... if Sen. McCain gets rid of black outs I will retroactively vote for him for President Edited July 8, 2013 by CodeMonkey
Metal Man Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 When the AFC moved from NBC to CBS they rechecked the broadcast areas for each of the municipalities and found that a VERY small sliver of the Syracuse TV market fell w/in 75 miles of Rich Stadium. The sliver was on 1 of the Finger Lakes and at the time had all of 8 houses and 1 closed restaurant. Because of that sliver, the blackout was on for Syracuse. (Side note: Baton Rouge fell victim to NO's blackout that same year for essentially the same reason. Don't know if that one's been lifted or not.) The next year, that sliver of land was reclassified to the Ra-cha-cha market but Ralph and the Bills wouldn't budge on pulling Syracuse out of the blackout zone. This really stunk for me as I could get the Syracuse stations over the air though I'm in the Ra-cha-cha market. That NBC to CBS move was a long time ago so you'd think this all needs revisiting, especially with the new signals. Like PTR mentioned it is extremely unlikely that the digital signal can come close to those 8 houses anymore but I know it is a long shot for anyone to care enough to check again.... unless somehow CBS can lose the AFC back to NBC, guess we need to hope for that in Syracuse. I've only been out in the CNY area for about 8 years so I can only imagine the frustration for those who have been dealing with it all along. I wouldn't have ever believed Syracuse was blacked out until the first time it happened after I had moved.
CodeMonkey Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 If you wish to send Sen McCain a message (I just did), you can do so here. http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.contactform
PromoTheRobot Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) Soo according to the owners, the blackout rule has increased fans ability to watch games on TV because the number of blacked out games has decreased? Seriously?? Well it is the same logic Justice Roberts used with the Voting Rights Act decision. That NBC to CBS move was a long time ago so you'd think this all needs revisiting, especially with the new signals. Like PTR mentioned it is extremely unlikely that the digital signal can come close to those 8 houses anymore but I know it is a long shot for anyone to care enough to check again.... unless somehow CBS can lose the AFC back to NBC, guess we need to hope for that in Syracuse. I've only been out in the CNY area for about 8 years so I can only imagine the frustration for those who have been dealing with it all along. I wouldn't have ever believed Syracuse was blacked out until the first time it happened after I had moved. And because Utica has no CBS affiliate, the black out extends over 200 miles from RWS!! PTR Edited July 8, 2013 by PromoTheRobot
maddenboy Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) > But, if consumers keep buying, that means we like it (or dont hate it) so THAT is the free market doing its work. Yes and no. There is just one credible professional football league--the NFL--which means the NFL has a lot of market power. On the other hand, consumers are divided: we "negotiate" with the NFL as individuals; not as a collective whole. In an ideal free market, there should be both a large numbers of producers and a large number of consumers. For example, a large number of wheat farmers each selling a commodity product (grade A wheat), to a large number of buyers. Arguably professional football is a natural monopoly, much like cable television or land line phone service. Any given monopoly will attempt to charge higher prices than would have obtained in an ideal free market. I don't see a logical way to break up the NFL into several different competing football leagues. But if the NFL isn't going to be broken up, it will have too much power in its dealings with consumers. Government involvement can legitimately be used to reduce some of that power. Taking away the blackout rule is an obvious place to start; because the sole purpose of that rule is anti-competitive. By offering games on both T.V. and in stadiums, the NFL is competing against itself. The NFL doesn't want that competition to result in lower prices for stadium seats. Which is why it uses the blackout rule to eliminate this competition in markets with the most downward price pressure on tickets. (That is, those markets which have the hardest time selling out.) Any time someone becomes the owner of a monopoly, there's an opportunity to collect an "economic rent." Economic rent means monies collected over and above whatever would have been the case, had there been perfect competition. NFL owners and players are collecting massive economic rents. If there were, say, 100 different competing football leagues, each of which had a team in Buffalo, and each about the same size/credibility level, there's no way any one of those leagues could get away with the high ticket prices, insanely high concessions prices, very long commercial breaks, or other forms of gouging we're used to seeing. Each league would act like the NFL did back in the early '60s, back before it had obtained the power it had today. We as consumers do not owe NFL owners or players massive economic rents. You had me somewhat persuaded, until this last sentence. We can choose to pay, or not pay. No one said we owe them anything. And they dont owe us anything either. (I majored in Econ too, many years ago). Natural monopolies do occur. The problem is not that they charge higher, or obtain Economic Rent. Rather, w/r/t government involvement, the problem is when they abuse that market power. Whether the NFL is or isnt abusing its monopoly, to the detriment of the public, is open to debate. But to me, the NFL is a luxury item, not a necessity like electricity, clean water, etc. So the less necessary is the product, the less the govt. should throw its weight into the situation. Edited July 8, 2013 by maddenboy
Recommended Posts