Oh no, poor billionaires losing money.

[Bubba Gump]

This is all getting ridiculous. The average Joe can't afford to spend the money for 10 different streaming services. I'm a Yankees fan and they have their own network, YES. But still, they sold out and got some big cash for giving games to Prime and now Apple. George Stienbrenner never would've gone that route. They even have Starr Insurance patches/ads on their jerseys now. All Hal Steinbrenner cares about is money. That's why the team sucks right now. As long as there are asses in the seats, he's just dandy. His father must be spinning in his grave. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 hours ago, Freddie's Dead said:

I lived through the blackout years, when Rochester was blacked out because it was inside the 75 mile radius of OP.  Then they blacked out the 'cuse because like 4 or 5 houses serviced by 'cuse cable were 1 inch inside the 75 mile radius of OP.  Now Rochester is being blacked out again because we're not part of the home market.  ***** the NFL and their antitrust exemption and their thievery.  Billions in public money subsidizes the stadiums, hell, we just kicked in 800M for the new Bills stadium.  THE LEAST THEY ***** OWE US IS ACCESS TO THE ***** GAME BROADCASTS!!!

Exactly. They want their cake and they want to eat it too, it's good that someone else takes a few slices first 

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So your position is the rights holders should be able to sell to as many different subscription services as they like and then require consumers to pay the cost, so long as it makes them more money and at the same time should aggressively go after any illegal streamers? 

 

Rich get richer. All hail market capitalism. 

If those rights holders have antitrust exemptions, it's no longer market capitalism, it's state capitalism.

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:

 

If those rights holders have antitrust exemptions, it's no longer market capitalism, it's state capitalism.

 

Market capitalism in itself requires rolling back of, or exemptions from, regulation. If you are a pure free marketeer you think antitrust regulation should be abolished anyway. Why should there be any restriction on how much the richest make? If everyone else suffers that's tough. Live and let live. 

 

But it is always the case that most powerful get the most favourable treatment by regulators.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Market capitalism in itself requires rolling back of, or exemptions from, regulation. If you are a pure free marketeer you think antitrust regulation should be abolished anyway. Why should there be any restriction on how much the richest make? If everyone else suffers that's tough. Live and let live. 

 

But it is always the case that most powerful get the most favourable treatment by regulators.

Is not an entity that is in a favored position with the state such that they have a codified exemption from regulation NOT a peak example of.business-state intertwining?

 

Think investment banks in 2008

 

 

Also, unexpected side bonus of this thread:

 

Finding out who the snitches/collaborators are

Edited September 2, 2023 by Pine Barrens Mafia

[BillsShredder83]

2 hours ago, Matt_In_NH said:

You can it’s $400 on YouTube.  The thought that all I want is my team and that should be a fraction of the price is and always was ridiculous.   99% of people who subscribe to the ticket do it for THEIR team not to get 12 and I’m games they can only max watch two, 1 pm and 4pm.  

Rookie numbers lol need 3 tvs in living room Sundays. One for the each of the top 2 games at each slot, and the bonus TV for redzone!

[Bockeye]

11 hours ago, Beast said:

Yes.

 

Everyone should be equal.

 Works great until you’re working your a$$ off digging 5 ditches a day, Johnny is digging 1, and Bobby hasn’t dug a single ditch because he’s methed out, yet you all get the same pay at the end of the day. 
 

Is this how we’re identifying the classes?

Poor people = lazy as hell do nothings and idiots with no goals in life?

Rich people = crooked, blood sucking money makers with no morals?

 

This is a very interesting thread to say the least. 
 

Go Bills!

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bockeye

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, Bockeye said:

 

Rich people = crooked, blood sucking money makers with no morals?

 

 

Find me an honest billionaire. One who made his billions without cheating, lying, peddling influence or anything else underhanded. Just one.

[GunnerBill]

31 minutes ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:

Is not an entity that is in a favored position with the state such that they have a codified exemption from regulation NOT a peak example of.business-state intertwining?

 

Think investment banks in 2008

 

 

Also, unexpected side bonus of this thread:

 

Finding out who the snitches/collaborators are

 

Yep, it is entirely an example of that. And you are right about the response to the banking crisis a "true" believe in free market capitalism should be entirely relaxed about the fact that the markets decided the big investment banks had failed, they should go to the wall. But that wasn't the response at all. Those who most complain about state intervention were suddenly desperate for it. And the state stood as the bank of last resort. That wasn't just in America, but in the UK, in the Eurozone and around most of the western world. 

[Augie]

Please stop reminding me of how much I wanted to buy Citi at 50 cents/share. That pain is all I’m getting out of this. 

[dickleyjones]

arrrrrrrrrrrr

 

since my first BBS visit in...i dunno like 1990?

 

like the hydra, cut off a head two grow back. sharing will always be around.

[WhoTom]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The actual comparison is I own a convenience store and I used to allow customers to buy a bag of potatoes for $1. Then I decide I am not going to sell my potatoes in bags because I can earn more charging individually for them at 20 cents per potato. It is same product. The individual potatoes are no better than the they were in the bag. I have just decided I want to make more money. 

 

If I am that store owner and someone who can no longer afford the potatoes for his family runs in grabs them and runs out that is my fault not his.

 

 

 

A better analogy would be you realizing that potatoes sell really well, but turnips, rutabagas, and beets don't sell as well, so instead of selling bags of potatoes, you "bundle" a mix of potatoes and less popular root veggies. Now, people can't just buy a potato or a bag of potatoes without also buying something they don't want.

 

That's how the streaming packages work. All I want are Bills' games - the "potatoes," as it were - so I'm paying $400 for ST (Sunday afternoon games only) and $120 for NFL Plus so I can watch live primetime games on my tablet (but not my TV or laptop). Both of those services have features I don't use and show games I'm not interested in, but I'm paying for the turnips, rutabagas, and beets, even though I just want potatoes. And because the NFL has a monopoly, I can't just buy my potatoes elsewhere. Hence, a black market for potatoes opens up.

 

Black markets are a direct result of capitalism. If there's a demand, someone will supply it, regardless of the legality.

 

As for me, I had DirecTV for about 20 years for the sole purpose of watching the Bills on ST. So I paid about $1300/yr for a bunch of mostly crappy TV channels and ST so I could watch 16 football games and four or five other channels on occasion. A few years ago, I tried to negotiate the ST price and they wouldn't budge. I threatened to drop DTV and they gave me an 800 number to call for that, so I did. I pirate-streamed one or two NFL seasons with mixed results. Then, my son went back to school and I signed up for the ST-only student streaming plan for $100/year and NFL Plus for another $100/year, both of which I consider reasonable. Now the pair is $520 (son is no longer a student), which I don't think is reasonable. But I can afford it and I don't splurge on a lot of stuff, so it's my guilty pleasure. I'm a semi-retired freelance writer, so I think, "How many articles do I have to write to pay for this and how many hours will it take me to write them? Will I get at least that many hours of enjoyment out of the football packages?" For me, the answer is yes. For others, the question may be, "What do I have to scrimp on in order to watch my favorite team?" Their answer might not be so simple. I realize football is not a necessity, but I understand why someone would just pirate-stream if the price is out of their reach. As someone else mentioned, they probably wouldn't have subscribed anyway.

 

 

[RiotAct]

1 hour ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:

 

Find me an honest billionaire. One who made his billions without cheating, lying, peddling influence or anything else underhanded. Just one.

Taylor Swift.

[Gary Marangi]

16 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

 

[Utah John]

17 hours ago, HardyBoy said:

 

They get their stadiums subsidized and largely paid for with public money...the games should be easily accessible to watch... or they could privately fund their stadiums and give back their anti trust exception. 

This was exactly the argument back in the 60s or 70s that forced the NFL to allow home games to be televised in the home market, if sold out 72 hours in advance.  The public pays for so much related to the operation of the team that it's wrong to put restrictions on viewing. Of course now the home market can still see home games, but there are so many fans of most teams spread around the country that being a Bills fan should allow a person to get all the Bills games for a reasonable cost on a single streaming service.  For this, I'd say NFL Sunday Ticket qualifies.  But games on days other than Sundays should also be available, without a separate service or subscription.

 

It's time to rattle Congress's cage about this.

32 minutes ago, RiotAct said:

Taylor Swift.

And I'll bet if Taylor Swift wanted to buy an NFL franchise, all the other owners (at least all the men) would be happy to let that happen.

[LeGOATski]

13 hours ago, Beast said:

Yes.

 

Everyone should be equal.

No, that's not the point of Robin Hood tale

[frostbitmic]

I only watch the games on network TV and ESPN. I haven't bothered with Amazon and haven't missed Thursday night games a bit. I won't pay peacock or you tube either, and I don't stream (my PC is old and too slow to stream anything, and I just don't care enough)

 

Eventually they'll put the playoffs and Super Bowl on PPV and charge $100, and all games will end up on pay as you go services. In doing so, they'll lose fans like myself, but all things reach a peak then regress and the same is or will happen with the NFL. It has already started to lose me a bit.

 

Falling off my soap box.

[LabattBlue]

13 minutes ago, frostbitmic said:

Eventually they'll put the playoffs and Super Bowl on PPV and charge $100.

Not in my lifetime. 

[frostbitmic]

26 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

Not in my lifetime. 

I hope you're right but I think we all know that's the way it's headed.

[Reks Ryan]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The actual comparison is I own a convenience store and I used to allow customers to buy a bag of potatoes for $1. Then I decide I am not going to sell my potatoes in bags because I can earn more charging individually for them at 20 cents per potato. It is same product. The individual potatoes are no better than the they were in the bag. I have just decided I want to make more money. 

 

If I am that store owner and someone who can no longer afford the potatoes for his family runs in grabs them and runs out that is my fault not his.

 

 

Not a good comparison.   If a store overprices goods they open the door for a competitor to take their business.  The customer who is willing to pay $1.00 for a bag of potatoes, but can't afford $.20 each, can go the grocery store and buy it by the bag, or perhaps a new covenience store.     If there's a market to make a profit on $1.00 bags of potatoes with a little effort consumers will be able to get them.  They dont need to steal, just don't give your business to the  overpriced store.

 

The NFL has a limited anti-trrust exemption and is essentially a monoply.   Of course, customers can choose not to consume NFL football.  But unlike potatoes, you don't have a choice to legally buy it somewhere else. 

[Matt_In_NH]

3 hours ago, BillsShredder83 said:

Rookie numbers lol need 3 tvs in living room Sundays. One for the each of the top 2 games at each slot, and the bonus TV for redzone!

Understand you can do that.  I just think you are in the minority and also you cannot actively watch them all I have tried it.  

7 minutes ago, Reks Ryan said:

Not a good comparison.   If a store overprices goods they open the door for a competitor to take their business.  The customer who is willing to pay $1.00 for a bag of potatoes, but can't afford $.20 each, can go the grocery store and buy it by the bag, or perhaps a new covenience store.     If there's a market to make a profit on $1.00 bags of potatoes with a little effort consumers will be able to get them.  They dont need to steal, just don't give your business to the  overpriced store.

 

The NFL has a limited anti-trrust exemption and is essentially a monoply.   Of course, customers can choose not to consume NFL football.  But unlike potatoes, you don't have a choice to legally buy it somewhere else. 

It is a decent analogy.   You can buy those potatoes at 20 cents(NFL) or the competitors crappy potatoes for 1 dollar a bag (XFL)