NFL plans Internet-only national broadcast of game

[Nadine]

Where I live its comcast or nothing when it comes to Internet. They have the best infrastructure. Thus comcast I am forced to use......

I cannot figure why but if you have bright house in your area.....you may not have comcast and vice verse.  Is it a law? Is it something comcast and brighthouse worked out? IDK but you get one choice as far as cable is concerned.

 

I had Uverse for a while and just disconnected that.  

 

But it shouldn't be this way.

 

Even if Google fiber was available, internet would still be $70/month but, at least it would be fast

https://fiber.google.com/about/

 

I'm sure they would a la cart the modem/router charge and the dvr and anything else they can think of

 

my brighthouse bill went up 1 month after I signed up.  The way they do it  (even though I have a guaranteed bundle price good for 1 year) is to a la cart fees.  They add fees and increase those

 

sports network , paper billing, network tv fee.  I expect that list to grow.

[Superman]

Personal computers and the internet are horrible methods for watching video. Its a regressive product......its advanced technology that provides inferior service compared to the technology it replaced.

I hope the game is an experiment that goes away fast.

False.

With streaming devices, Internet TV is just as good as cable, and sometimes even has a better signal.

[Superman]

Hulu, Netflix, Chromecast, Amazon Fire Stick, Apple TV.

All do the majority of the functions cable does, but drastically cheaper. I don't doubt in the future the big ISP's will figure out how to make Internet more expensive, but right now Cable is by far.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-cable-tv-beats-the-internet-for-now-1427225376

 

That article points out why Internet TV still isn't cheaper than cable. The networks and services are all spread out over various platforms that require different devices. By the time you buy an Apple TV, a Roku, a Fire Stick, a Sling Box, an XBOX and a PS4, plus you pay for the monthly subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Sunday Ticket, CBS, Sling, HBO, etc., etc., you're not saving any money. Exclusive content agreements are preventing standardization for now.

 

You can be more selective, but for some content, cable is still the best way to go.

[Superman]

Do you think this has anything to do with the FCC abandoning it's support of the Blackout Rule in 2014, recently "supported" by NFL clubs and repealed? The timing is.....coincidental, is it not? 

 

Their intent is not to make ALL games pay to watch, but they certainly intend to make some of them, eventually marque games, p2w. 

 

This plan has nothing to do with blackout rules. The only market that would be affected by a blackout would be the home team's TV market, and game they're showing online will still be shown over the air in the team's home markets. 

 

This is the early morning London game. It will be streamed, probably on YouTube, to every other market. There will be commercials. People can stream it to their TVs if they have an Internet streaming device (if YouTube gets the rights, it will be a natural tie-in to market their Chromecast streaming stick). This game likely won't be p2w. But seeing as it's out of market for everyone who will be able to stream it, that's actually a freebie. This is a game that you'd normally need to have Sunday Ticket to watch.

 

The way people consume content is changing. Internet TV is going to be huge. And it would be a mistake for the NFL to ignore it. They can put their toe in the water now, and then they'll figure out a way to scale it up and produce more league revenue. Hopefully, that will mean more accessibility for NFL fans, not less.

[shakedownstreet]

False.

With streaming devices, Internet TV is just as good as cable, and sometimes even has a better signal.

 

yeah the cable channels are delivered over the same fiber network as the internet service. the video quality possibilities are endless given modern high speed data

[southwest1]

Bad idea IMO. I like watching my games on my TV and that's how it should stay, but unless that's a Thursday or Monday game I wont be watching anyway. And even if I did I'd just get my HDMI cord and still watch it on my TV. Hopefully this is just a one time thing though anyway.

I agree C449. I like watching games on my TV too &, contrary to popular belief, not every citizen in this country owns a computer either. 

[esmort]

I agree C449. I like watching games on my TV too &, contrary to popular belief, not every citizen in this country owns a computer either. 

 

Anything like the NFL is talking about would streamable over Smart TVs, Roku (already has NFL app), etc ... you would not need a computer to stream it.  

[southwest1]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-cable-tv-beats-the-internet-for-now-1427225376

 

That article points out why Internet TV still isn't cheaper than cable. The networks and services are all spread out over various platforms that require different devices. By the time you buy an Apple TV, a Roku, a Fire Stick, a Sling Box, an XBOX and a PS4, plus you pay for the monthly subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Sunday Ticket, CBS, Sling, HBO, etc., etc., you're not saving any money. Exclusive content agreements are preventing standardization for now.

 

You can be more selective, but for some content, cable is still the best way to go.

Nice article Superman. I signed up for Amazon fire stick because I'm such a big movie buff but I don't like the remote because I have long, slender fingers which makes the device harder to navigate for me. Plus, I thought I was gonna be billed a small monthly fee not $100 bucks a year that surprised me when I checked my online banking statement. That information was not made readily apparent either by the salesman or the manual literature out of the box. 

 

And yes, most people I know aren't going to discard a perfectly working TV just to buy a new technologically advanced one with hulu or Netflix on it etc. 

[southwest1]

Anything like the NFL is talking about would streamable over Smart TVs, Roku (already has NFL app), etc ... you would not need a computer to stream it.  

True, but like I said above, I refuse to spend more money than necessary to buy an upgraded TV & I don't play video games so a PS4 or XBOX is useless to me. You're point is well taken though esmort. 

 

My nephews have XBOX & PS4 systems & cell phones. Me, I'm perfectly content with with my flatscreen VIZIO TV, Direct TV NFL Sunday Ticket Package, & Amazon Fire Stick. 

[ReMeDy]

if the nfl becomes pay to watch, it will lose it's status as everyone's game. A LOT of households turn on the game just because it's on. some slowly become diehard fans, some don't

 

your casual fan is not going to pay to watch

 

I think this is what also started the decline of professional boxing. Too much pay-per-view.

[esmort]

True, but like I said above, I refuse to spend more money than necessary to buy an upgraded TV & I don't play video games so a PS4 or XBOX is useless to me. You're point is well taken though esmort. 

 

My nephews have XBOX & PS4 systems & cell phones. Me, I'm perfectly content with with my flatscreen VIZIO TV, Direct TV NFL Sunday Ticket Package, & Amazon Fire Stick. 

 

I agree, wouldn't throw a perfectly good tv out and a lot people won't go out and buy something specific...But, more and more things come with the apps built in, DVD/Blu/Ray players, DVRs, phones, etc ... soon most everyone will have some level of streaming ability ...  I think its a safe bet your Firestick will get the app if the NFL made this the standard. 

[Superman]

Nice article Superman. I signed up for Amazon fire stick because I'm such a big movie buff but I don't like the remote because I have long, slender fingers which makes the device harder to navigate for me. Plus, I thought I was gonna be billed a small monthly fee not $100 bucks a year that surprised me when I checked my online banking statement. That information was not made readily apparent either by the salesman or the manual literature out of the box. 

 

And yes, most people I know aren't going to discard a perfectly working TV just to buy a new technologically advanced one with hulu or Netflix on it etc. 

 

I don't like Smart TVs, personally. You're limited to the apps the TV manufacturer allows you to install. There are some TVs with a Roku built into them, but they're lower quality sets.

 

I have a Roku and a Chromecast. They're both open source and will have a ton of apps -- some that work well, others that are kind of junky. Chromecast is $35, the cheapest streaming device on the market that I know of. And you can control it through the apps on your smartphone (don't tell me; everyone doesn't have a smartphone... lol) But that comes with zero content; same for Roku. You found out the hard way how much Amazon hits for; that's a bigger commitment than $8/month for Netflix or Hulu. But they have some really good content, a lot of it exclusive. But I can have Amazon Prime through Roku; I don't need their device.

 

The big thing is sports and network shows. On demand features for network shows require you to wait til the next day to watch, which isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not the best, either. And you have to watch them within a certain period of time, sometimes as little as five weeks. You can't DVR an entire season of your show (or let a few weeks pile up) and then binge-watch them on your own schedule. And there's still commercials.

 

And sports, forget about it. There is no on-demand sports programming, or broad-spectrum streaming access. ESPN has an app, but I think they're the only network. And that's not on-demand, it's live streaming. If you don't have a computer and high speed Internet, then cable is still very much in the picture. 

 

I had no cable for a couple years. I'd go to the bar to watch Colts games, and re-watch later online. That's when I discovered Roku, Hulu, etc. I've since gone back to cable. I'll probably go back to DirecTV in the fall, for Sunday Ticket. There are a lot of options, but it's very a la carte. Cable is still way more comprehensive and becoming more user-friendly.

[Superman]

I think this is what also started the decline of professional boxing. Too much pay-per-view.

 

PPV is a lot different from basic cable.

 

But Fox and CBS are still locked in for a long time, for a lot of money. The NFL will be available over the air for while yet.

[DougDew]

False.

With streaming devices, Internet TV is just as good as cable, and sometimes even has a better signal.

Signal shmignal. The cable signal I've had has been just fine since the 90s. Picture and sound hype...reminds me of the stereo salesman who always tried to get you to buy the most expensive speakers. You know, you were an unsophisticated, uncool, dork if you didn't know the difference between good speakers and bad speakers

Like the Rob Lowe commercials. You can tell when a product really has nothing to say when they just try to portray their competition as dorks or social outcasts. Not that direct TV is the internet, but its just a different form of watching the same show. Beer and cigarette advertisements always sell image too, because they know their product is really no different than the competition.

Nah..I've gone through vinyl, 8 track, cassette, dvd, ipod...just to listen to the same songs again and again. When it comes to consumer electronics...its all a scam. All of it.

All they need to do to make TV better is skip the technology nonsense and offer alacarte cable...so I can pay $5 each for the 9 channels I actually watch, instead of being forced to pay for the other 75 that tag along.

[Superman]

Signal shmignal. The cable signal I've had has been just fine since the 90s. Picture and sound hype...reminds me of the stereo salesman who always tried to get you to buy the most expensive speakers. You know, you were an unsophisticated, uncool, dork if you didn't know the difference between good speakers and bad speakers

Like the Rob Lowe commercials. You can tell when a product really has nothing to say when they just try to portray their competition as dorks or social outcasts. Not that direct TV is the internet, but its just a different form of watching the same show. Beer and cigarette advertisements always sell image too, because they know their product is really no different than the competition.

Nah..I've gone through vinyl, 8 track, cassette, dvd, ipod...just to listen to the same songs again and again. When it comes to consumer electronics...its all a scam. All of it.

All they need to do to make TV better is skip the technology nonsense and offer alacarte cable...so I can pay $5 each for the 9 channels I actually watch, instead of being forced to pay for the other 75 that tag along.

 

"Skip the technology nonsense"... wow.

 

Like I said, there's nothing inferior about streaming TV. Your a la carte desire is shared by many, but is probably still a long way off. Meanwhile, Internet TV is the closest thing to what you're looking for.

[DougDew]

"Skip the technology nonsense"... wow.

 

Like I said, there's nothing inferior about streaming TV. Your a la carte desire is shared by many, but is probably still a long way off. Meanwhile, Internet TV is the closest thing to what you're looking for.

The only thing consumer technology advancement is really offering is a different method of watching the same thing..in this case an NFL game. I don't care if its delivered via rabbit ears ( as long as the picture is clear) or Martian hyperdrive.

I only care about the content, the picture clarity, and the price......and they're trying to sell me a delivery system. Nah...I'm not falling for it.

[Superman]

The only thing consumer technology advancement is really offering is a different method of watching the same thing..in this case an NFL game. I don't care if its delivered via rabbit ears ( as long as the picture is clear) or Martian hyperdrive.

I only care about the content, the picture clarity, and the price......and they're trying to sell me a delivery system. Nah...I'm not falling for it.

 

Who's trying to sell you anything?

 

There are a number of ways to watch this one game online, and if you want, you can. No one is forcing anything on you. It's about consumer choice and access. 

 

Really, you're not making any sense.

[southwest1]

I don't like Smart TVs, personally. You're limited to the apps the TV manufacturer allows you to install. There are some TVs with a Roku built into them, but they're lower quality sets.

 

I have a Roku and a Chromecast. They're both open source and will have a ton of apps -- some that work well, others that are kind of junky. Chromecast is $35, the cheapest streaming device on the market that I know of. And you can control it through the apps on your smartphone (don't tell me; everyone doesn't have a smartphone... lol) But that comes with zero content; same for Roku. You found out the hard way how much Amazon hits for; that's a bigger commitment than $8/month for Netflix or Hulu. But they have some really good content, a lot of it exclusive. But I can have Amazon Prime through Roku; I don't need their device.

 

The big thing is sports and network shows. On demand features for network shows require you to wait til the next day to watch, which isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not the best, either. And you have to watch them within a certain period of time, sometimes as little as five weeks. You can't DVR an entire season of your show (or let a few weeks pile up) and then binge-watch them on your own schedule. And there's still commercials.

 

And sports, forget about it. There is no on-demand sports programming, or broad-spectrum streaming access. ESPN has an app, but I think they're the only network. And that's not on-demand, it's live streaming. If you don't have a computer and high speed Internet, then cable is still very much in the picture. 

 

I had no cable for a couple years. I'd go to the bar to watch Colts games, and re-watch later online. That's when I discovered Roku, Hulu, etc. I've since gone back to cable. I'll probably go back to DirecTV in the fall, for Sunday Ticket. There are a lot of options, but it's very a la carte. Cable is still way more comprehensive and becoming more user-friendly.

Your point about binge watching games or being able to record programs on DVR is a good one. A 5 day window to stream something or lose access to it isn't very user friendly as you suggest. I could never go to a bar to watch Colts games for 2 reasons: 1. I'm in the middle of Green Bay Packers Country & 2. I've been known to get a little animated when watching Colts games. I don't get crude or violent just enthusiastic I guess for lack of a better word. 

 

I think Amazon Fire Stick cost me about $35 initially & it has comedy shows & popular TV shows on it with the standard Prime package included. No sports are included just movies & TV entertainment stuff. You can also do actor & movie title searches on it & eventually even films in current release mode sooner or later can be streamed free to yearly subscribers. Foreign films are available too.

 

I like Direct TV because I can record Colts games, Giants games, & Broncos games at my leisure, watch other games live, & I will never worry about my recorded NFL games getting erased until I delete it off my DVR hard drive.  

 

There are also some cool documentaries on there like WWII Russian submarines being discovered/unearthed, but I was hoping a Rock-N-Roll HOF ceremony feature was on fire stick because I watch that special every year like clockwork. However, I haven't found it yet. Major bummer. Oh well. 

[DougDew]

Who's trying to sell you anything?

 

There are a number of ways to watch this one game online, and if you want, you can. No one is forcing anything on you. It's about consumer choice and access. 

 

Really, you're not making any sense.

Different choices come to market because enough people want more choice. That's simple enough. Why more people want more choice about how to watch a football game than the free games we have had for 30 years doesn't make any sense to me. I can see that if someone wants the NFL package, access to 12 games each Sunday instead of the four that are broadcast locally, then that is a logical product to offer...and it costs the consumer a monthly fee. Whether or not that product comes via cable, the internet, or satellite I can't figure why someone would care.

Since I can't figure out why a reasonable person would care, I can't figure why the NFL is offering thc choice.

I assume the NFL sees this as a way of eventually eliminating free Sunday 4 game packages that the consumer has known for decades, not really as a way to expand its product to more customers.

[theanarchist]

Comcast is the devil......

According to momma, so is foosball.....

[Superman]

Different choices come to market because enough people want more choice. That's simple enough. Why more people want more choice about how to watch a football game than the free games we have had for 30 years doesn't make any sense to me. I can see that if someone wants the NFL package, access to 12 games each Sunday instead of the four that are broadcast locally, then that is a logical product to offer...and it costs the consumer a monthly fee. Whether or not that product comes via cable, the internet, or satellite I can't figure why someone would care.

Since I can't figure out why a reasonable person would care, I can't figure why the NFL is offering thc choice.

I assume the NFL sees this as a way of eventually eliminating free Sunday 4 game packages that the consumer has known for decades, not really as a way to expand its product to more customers.

 

Yet again, you've found a way to uncover some secret agenda.

 

Whether you believe it or not, there are people who would like to have the ability to stream NFL games live. ESPN already streams MNF, and they do great numbers with it. It's not some made-up demand that's being pushed on you.

 

To the bolded, didn't you say earlier that you want your channels a la carte? So if the NFL offers live streaming for every game without having to pay for DirecTV, wouldn't you be interested in that service?

[DougDew]

I cannot figure why but if you have bright house in your area.....you may not have comcast and vice verse.  Is it a law? Is it something comcast and brighthouse worked out? IDK but you get one choice as far as cable is concerned.

 

I had Uverse for a while and just disconnected that.  

 

But it shouldn't be this way.

 

Even if Google fiber was available, internet would still be $70/month but, at least it would be fast

https://fiber.google.com/about/

 

I'm sure they would a la cart the modem/router charge and the dvr and anything else they can think of

 

my brighthouse bill went up 1 month after I signed up.  The way they do it  (even though I have a guaranteed bundle price good for 1 year) is to a la cart fees.  They add fees and increase those

 

sports network , paper billing, network tv fee.  I expect that list to grow.

Generally speaking, cable companies have monopolies. There is a reason.

Just some history: In general terms, government has deemed certain things to be more efficient to the consumer if it is delivered by a company that has a monopoly, instead of the usual capitalist method of providing competition between companies. As an example: Utlilities. Your electricity comes from one company. That's because early on government realized that they didn't want each capitalist fly by night company stringing it own wires down main street...you know...10 different electric companies having ten different sets of wires hanging off of utility poles. Or, ten different cable companies digging up neighborhoods every time someone switches companies. So companies that need infrastructure to provide services, like electricity, gas, water..phones..cable TV are allowed to have monopolies in exchange for being highly regulated in terms of price. Company's come and go, but the common infrastructure stays.

Now, I guess out of demand, people want satellites and phone companies (internet) delivering TV too. There isn't one highly regulated company providing the service, but several different companies trying to convince the customer they are providing something different than their competitor, which is really impossible since the wires going into your house never change. Several companies using the same infrastructure really becomes less efficient than just one, but they try to tell you its better because of competition. Sort of tapping into everyone's love for the flag and apple pie, which it really isn't. Our great grandparents knew better when it came to structuring utilities.

[southwest1]

I agree, wouldn't throw a perfectly good tv out and a lot people won't go out and buy something specific...But, more and more things come with the apps built in, DVD/Blu/Ray players, DVRs, phones, etc ... soon most everyone will have some level of streaming ability ...  I think its a safe bet your Firestick will get the app if the NFL made this the standard. 

Well said. I really like my fire stick because if I can hook it up & it works anybody can do it. LOL! If you love motion pictures, fire stick is the way to go. No more trips to a video store or rental machine.   It would be awesome if I could get NFL games on there & more music documentaries, but like you say over time that might change for the better. 

 

Yes, as more devices like DVRs have streaming capabilities; top notchTVs are not mandatory. An excellent point esmort.   

[DougDew]

Yet again, you've found a way to uncover some secret agenda.

 

Whether you believe it or not, there are people who would like to have the ability to stream NFL games live. ESPN already streams MNF, and they do great numbers with it. It's not some made-up demand that's being pushed on you.

 

To the bolded, didn't you say earlier that you want your channels a la carte? So if the NFL offers live streaming for every game without having to pay for DirecTV, wouldn't you be interested in that service?

Agenda? I'm asking that if the game is the same, the picture is the same, why does the consumer care if it is streamed via internet or delivered via rabbit ears...other than a few who want to be like Rob Lowe?

Why do the customers demand the change in delivery technology if the product... a clear picture on a screen...doesn't change?

That's no agenda. Its a question that has no reasonable answer that I can see. The NFL must see something.

For a la carte cable, you never needed development of an expensive technology to compete with cable. You just needed the cable regulator to demand that the local cable monopoly offer it.

[Vance]

How can the Bills and Jags possibly compete with internet porn?

[Nadine]

Generally speaking, cable companies have monopolies. There is a reason.

Just some history: In general terms, government has deemed certain things to be more efficient to the consumer if it is delivered by a company that has a monopoly, instead of the usual capitalist method of providing competition between companies. As an example: Utlilities. Your electricity comes from one company. That's because early on government realized that they didn't want each capitalist fly by night company stringing it own wires down main street...you know...10 different electric companies having ten different sets of wires hanging off of utility poles. Or, ten different cable companies digging up neighborhoods every time someone switches companies. So companies that need infrastructure to provide services, like electricity, gas, water..phones..cable TV are allowed to have monopolies in exchange for being highly regulated in terms of price. Company's come and go, but the common infrastructure stays.

Now, I guess out of demand, people want satellites and phone companies (internet) delivering TV too. There isn't one highly regulated company providing the service, but several different companies trying to convince the customer they are providing something different than their competitor, which is really impossible since the wires going into your house never change. Several companies using the same infrastructure really becomes less efficient than just one, but they try to tell you its better because of competition. Sort of tapping into everyone's love for the flag and apple pie, which it really isn't. Our great grandparents knew better when it came to structuring utilities.

That makes sense except I don't t think the prices are regulated.

When I was doing my taxes, the Accountant asked me how much my internet cost and I was like.........well, that depends on how you look at it

[radiogirl]

According to momma, so is foosball.....

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[radiogirl]

Generally speaking, cable companies have monopolies. There is a reason.

Just some history: In general terms, government has deemed certain things to be more efficient to the consumer if it is delivered by a company that has a monopoly, instead of the usual capitalist method of providing competition between companies. As an example: Utlilities. Your electricity comes from one company. That's because early on government realized that they didn't want each capitalist fly by night company stringing it own wires down main street...you know...10 different electric companies having ten different sets of wires hanging off of utility poles. Or, ten different cable companies digging up neighborhoods every time someone switches companies. So companies that need infrastructure to provide services, like electricity, gas, water..phones..cable TV are allowed to have monopolies in exchange for being highly regulated in terms of price. Company's come and go, but the common infrastructure stays.

Now, I guess out of demand, people want satellites and phone companies (internet) delivering TV too. There isn't one highly regulated company providing the service, but several different companies trying to convince the customer they are providing something different than their competitor, which is really impossible since the wires going into your house never change. Several companies using the same infrastructure really becomes less efficient than just one, but they try to tell you its better because of competition. Sort of tapping into everyone's love for the flag and apple pie, which it really isn't. Our great grandparents knew better when it came to structuring utilities.

I deal with this every day!  Government regulating media!  Cable can double dip from the consumers with subscriptions and advertising.  Then they pull this bundling crap and creating what I see as price fixing.  I hate them.  I fight with Comcast about every three months.  And, I have a regular battle going on with one of our utility companies.  We are in one of the highest priced counties in Indiana and we get stuck every month with ridiculous bills for our sewer.  I actually explained to the president of the company that I promised we weren't flushing dead bodies down our sewer.  He cut me some slack and took a chunk off our bill.  But, everything is a fight!  Wears me out.....

[DougDew]

I deal with this every day!  Government regulating media!  Cable can double dip from the consumers with subscriptions and advertising.  Then they pull this bundling crap and creating what I see as price fixing.  I hate them.  I fight with Comcast about every three months.  And, I have a regular battle going on with one of our utility companies.  We are in one of the highest priced counties in Indiana and we get stuck every month with ridiculous bills for our sewer.  I actually explained to the president of the company that I promised we weren't flushing dead bodies down our sewer.  He cut me some slack and took a chunk off our bill.  But, everything is a fight!  Wears me out.....

I don't want to go totally OT so I'll combine a response to Nadine's comment above.  As I mentioned to Nadine, long ago when the country was probably more economically conservative than what it is now, wise officials saw the appeal of having one privately owned company have a monopoly over providing certain services to the public in exchange for being highly regulated.  That's because different companies were not capable of offering the consumer a different product....the end product would be the same from company to company.  Sewer, water, electricity, gas, phone, and to a large extent video, are what they are and they all tend to have monopolies for that reason.  Also, each company would use shared infrastructure.

 

Taking phone service as an example, since the product was the same from company to company, land line  phone companies competed over offering packages and bundles of discount prices for a certain length.  Now cell phone companies do the same thing since the product offered by one cell phone company is essentially the same as the next.  Same with video.

 

How would you like it if there were 6 different companies offering you home water service, instead of just 1, where the end product is getting potable water from your kitchen faucet?  What could one company possibly offer you that another couldn't?   How about electricity companies, where the end product is current from your outlet?  Same for sewer.  I believe it would be more expensive if the consumer paid enough in fees to support 6 different sewer companies sharing the same pipes rather than just 1 using the pipes exclusively.  The philosophy of "competition" doesn't really work if all a company is going to do is compete on price.  Even that doesn't last because after the intitial purging of overpaid employees, all costs tend to be the same for every company.  Companies that can't offer real price differentiation, tend to reduce pricing to a game of bundles and packages that confuse the consumer.

 

Why should video be any different?  The content of programming may have some differentiation (although not NFL games) as well as the number of channels offered...and people are willing to pay for those differences and understand what they are paying for in those cases.... but there is no reason why the delivery of the picture has to be different, IMO.

 

Video service is sold in terms of bundles and packages and discounts for a length of time, when it should really be a flat fee per channel that increases yearly at the rate of inflation or to recoup costs incurred to maintain the infrastructure, IMO.  Like sewer, water, and electricity.   I like paying a consistent fee to one company for sewer and one for water and one for electricity, and don't like the business model of having to figure out company pricing for phone or video service since the products offered by each competitor is essentially the same.  But that's what we have at the moment.

[Hoosier]

I'm sure any fan who lives within their team's market sees no problem with this.

I live away from Indy and have to pay for Sunday Ticket to watch all Colts games.

Suppose this had been Jags/Colts instead of Jags/Bills.

Now, I'm going to have to pay an additional fee to watch this game on a laptop screen??

[Superman]

I'm sure any fan who lives within their team's market sees no problem with this.

I live away from Indy and have to pay for Sunday Ticket to watch all Colts games.

Suppose this had been Jags/Colts instead of Jags/Bills.

Now, I'm going to have to pay an additional fee to watch this game on a laptop screen??

 

Pretty sure there won't be a fee to watch this game.

[Superman]

Agenda? I'm asking that if the game is the same, the picture is the same, why does the consumer care if it is streamed via internet or delivered via rabbit ears...other than a few who want to be like Rob Lowe?

Why do the customers demand the change in delivery technology if the product... a clear picture on a screen...doesn't change?

That's no agenda. Its a question that has no reasonable answer that I can see. The NFL must see something.

For a la carte cable, you never needed development of an expensive technology to compete with cable. You just needed the cable regulator to demand that the local cable monopoly offer it.

 

Because Internet is portable and on-demand, and rabbit ears aren't. 

 

That's like asking why people have moved away from land lines to cell phones. For ease of use, portability and accessibility. And 20 years ago, some people were shaking their heads and talking about how they'd never have a cell phone, and now they have iPhones -- my dad is one of them. Same thing with Netflix. "Why should I wait two days to get my movie when I can drive to Blockbuster right now?" Fifteen years later, Blockbuster is dead, and between mailings and streaming, Netflix has changed the game.

 

You don't need to develop an extensive technology to offer live streaming NFL games. The Internet is alive and strong. This isn't 1985. The technology exists already. All we're talking about is increased accessibility for the many millions of people who already stream TV, some of whom wish they could or already have gotten rid of cable. 

 

I don't know what the Rob Lowe comments are about. 

[radiogirl]

I don't want to go totally OT so I'll combine a response to Nadine's comment above.  As I mentioned to Nadine, long ago when the country was probably more economically conservative than what it is now, wise officials saw the appeal of having one privately owned company have a monopoly over providing certain services to the public in exchange for being highly regulated.  That's because different companies were not capable of offering the consumer a different product....the end product would be the same from company to company.  Sewer, water, electricity, gas, phone, and to a large extent video, are what they are and they all tend to have monopolies for that reason.  Also, each company would use shared infrastructure.

 

Taking phone service as an example, since the product was the same from company to company, land line  phone companies competed over offering packages and bundles of discount prices for a certain length.  Now cell phone companies do the same thing since the product offered by one cell phone company is essentially the same as the next.  Same with video.

 

How would you like it if there were 6 different companies offering you home water service, instead of just 1, where the end product is getting potable water from your kitchen faucet?  What could one company possibly offer you that another couldn't?   How about electricity companies, where the end product is current from your outlet?  Same for sewer.  I believe it would be more expensive if the consumer paid enough in fees to support 6 different sewer companies sharing the same pipes rather than just 1 using the pipes exclusively.  The philosophy of "competition" doesn't really work if all a company is going to do is compete on price.  Even that doesn't last because after the intitial purging of overpaid employees, all costs tend to be the same for every company.  Companies that can't offer real price differentiation, tend to reduce pricing to a game of bundles and packages that confuse the consumer.

 

Why should video be any different?  The content of programming may have some differentiation (although not NFL games) as well as the number of channels offered...and people are willing to pay for those differences and understand what they are paying for in those cases.... but there is no reason why the delivery of the picture has to be different, IMO.

 

Video service is sold in terms of bundles and packages and discounts for a length of time, when it should really be a flat fee per channel that increases yearly at the rate of inflation or to recoup costs incurred to maintain the infrastructure, IMO.  Like sewer, water, and electricity.   I like paying a consistent fee to one company for sewer and one for water and one for electricity, and don't like the business model of having to figure out company pricing for phone or video service since the products offered by each competitor is essentially the same.  But that's what we have at the moment.

What I take issue with is a utility company price gouging certain customers in certain areas over others depending on the county.  I had a water bill of $101 in one month and my sewer bill was $343.  FOR SEWER!  I'm not kidding......I'm not saying I think there need to be multiple companies providing utilities.  But, the president of this company made $2.5 million dollars last year and charged a middle income family of 8 almost $350 for sewer.  If it's only provider; make sure their practices are fair.  I got a hold of the president of this company and he took it off my bill.  But, it took me hours of time and lots of hassle.  

 

The cable companies have two revenue streams; subscriptions and advertising.  They are very wealthy companies. They nickel and dime customers all the time.  I had no problems when I had brighthouse.  It's Comcast.  I really don't like them.  They bundle everything but when you tell them you don't need a phone service, it won't make a different on your bill.  Bullcr##.  Thieves. 

[DougDew]

What I take issue with is a utility company price gouging certain customers in certain areas over others depending on the county.  I had a water bill of $101 in one month and my sewer bill was $343.  FOR SEWER!  I'm not kidding......I'm not saying I think there need to be multiple companies providing utilities.  But, the president of this company made $2.5 million dollars last year and charged a middle income family of 8 almost $350 for sewer.  If it's only provider; make sure their practices are fair.  I got a hold of the president of this company and he took it off my bill.  But, it took me hours of time and lots of hassle.  

 

The cable companies have two revenue streams; subscriptions and advertising.  They are very wealthy companies. They nickel and dime customers all the time.  I had no problems when I had brighthouse.  It's Comcast.  I really don't like them.  They bundle everything but when you tell them you don't need a phone service, it won't make a different on your bill.  Bullcr##.  Thieves.

Yeah...you can find a lot of examples where people aren't getting the service they think they need. Utilities and pseudo utilities like phone and TV are filled with problems. Those companies receive some of the strongest regulation and oversight of any privately owned (but publically traded) companies. I t think the real problem is not strong enough oversight over these companies..not too little.

Getting back to the topic. Somehow we have managed to make NFL game streaming a reality. We have rabbit ears, analog cable, digital cable, satellite, now internet all providing the same thing. That's like having 5 electric companies vying for the ability to provide you with electrical power to your home outlets, and you being bombarded every month from companies offering you the ability to have them provide you with electricity. One nuclear, one coal, one gas, one wind, and one solar. They offer two year contracts at seemingly discounted rates compared to their competition if you switch to their company or technology. I don't think the consumer would put up with that type of hassle for their electrical service, yet we seem to accept it for TV and phone...and some even think its wonderful. I don't get it.

I guess because TV, phone, and internet aren't really essentials, they get a pass. But they sure are found in every household, just like the other utilities.

[oldunclemark]

Bad idea IMO. I like watching my games on my TV and that's how it should stay, but unless that's a Thursday or Monday game I wont be watching anyway. And even if I did I'd just get my HDMI cord and still watch it on my TV. Hopefully this is just a one time thing though anyway.

I agree C-449

I dont want to watch anything on the internet...and I don't see how it favors the NFL not to behave the Sunday a.m. overseas game exclusively on its own NFL Network....plus the local markets..

...Must be somebody bidding for the game

[Gavin]

Simple solution......Play the game on BOTH......Their is a saying....Keep It Simple Stupid

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

http://www.cnet.com/news/nfl-plans-internet-only-national-broadcast-of-game/

That is interesting to me. I was reading an article about how TV is going out of business because less and less people want to pay so much money for only a couple channels they enjoy. Others just use the Internet anyways like Netflix and the such. This could be a smart move for the NFL if the article I read ever does in fact come to pass.

[Superman]

Simple solution......Play the game on BOTH......Their is a saying....Keep It Simple Stupid

 

The game will be on TV in the local markets for the two teams playing the game. 

[BloodyChamp]

This is so late 90s professional wrestling.

[Gavin]

The game will be on TV in the local markets for the two teams playing the game.

I know. I mean for everybody else