No more "over air" broadcast of Rose Bowl, Stanford's bowl game, or BCS Championship
gvk2
2011, all the major bowl games will be limited to those viewers who
pay for cable or satellite.
Anyone viewing from the new digital boxes, is prevented from getting
any of those games they have viewed for the past 50+ years.
Here is the list that ONLY those paying a monthly fee will receive.
The Rose Bowl andFiesta Bowl, January 1st.
The Orange Bowl with Stanford, January 3rd.
The Sugar Bowl, January 4th.
The BCS National Championship, January 10th.
This is a first time major change in what most Americans had come to
view as a right.
Only ESPN will carry these games.
Thus those several million homes getting their TV via the airwaves are
"in the dark"...
But one more step in the stratification of American Society.
How long before the NFL, the NBA, and MLB reach contracts that ONLY
allow those paying for TV to get the games?
I didn't watch today, but was the Rose Bowl Parade even covered by
the major networks?
Wait until the Super Bowl is "pay only"...
John Higdon
<16d11c6d-e10b-4b36...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
gvk2 <gvk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rather surprising that for the first time, starting January 1st,
> 2011, all the major bowl games will be limited to those viewers who
> pay for cable or satellite.
Not to be a pill, but is there a right enumerated somewhere that grants
every citizen the ability to watch certain events free of charge over
the airwaves?
As I'm sure you are well aware, things that used to be "free" (as in
subsidized by everyone, whether they took advantage of them or not) and
now require payment of some sort constitute a list far too large to
present here.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
John Slade
Everybody scraping for any money they can get. It's a
sign of the times. I hated when they changed analog cable so you
have to buy/rent a digital box or other converter to get
channels above 34. That pretty much cuts out Monday Night
Football and Thursday games are on the NFL Network unless it's
local teams that sell out.
John
Travis James
> As I'm sure you are well aware, things that used to be "free" (as in
> subsidized by everyone, whether they took advantage of them or not) and
> now require payment of some sort constitute a list far too large to
> present here.
>
What's the subsidy that exists for OTA/free TV? I thought advertisers
paid for the costs.
Mark Mellin
<16d11c6d-e10b-4b36...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
gvk2 wrote:
>
> Here is the list that ONLY those paying a monthly fee will receive.
>
> The Rose Bowl andFiesta Bowl, January 1st.
This one is surprising to me. I had wondered about tuning in.
> I didn't watch today, but was the Rose Bowl Parade even covered by
> the major networks?
I don't now from network coverage, but locally KNTV and KICU
broadcast the parade.
- Mark
--
Mark Mellin San Mateo Village, CA 94403 USA
Phil Kane
wrote:
>This is a first time major change in what most Americans had come to
>view as a right.
You have got to be kidding, sir.....
John Higdon
Travis James <travis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Where do the advertisers get their money?
gvk2
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:30:03 -0800 (PST), gvk2 <gvk2...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This is a first time major change in what most Americans had come to
> >view as a right.
>
> You have got to be kidding, sir.....
Meaning the "bowl games" in particular.
After 60 years of being able to view the Rose Bowl, yes some people
think it is their "right" to view it without paying a monthly fee.
Knowing that the football product normally involves public
universities. This isn't even private professional sports.
What is next... The World's Olympics viewed only by those who can pay
a monthly fee?
Loose use of the word "right"... that most here understand.
Not everything we assume is a traditional right is enumerated in the
Constitution or Amendments.
gvk2
>
> Not to be a pill, but is there a right enumerated somewhere that grants
> every citizen the ability to watch certain events free of charge over
> the airwaves?
>
> As I'm sure you are well aware, things that used to be "free" (as in
Private sports, such as the NFL, etc....perhaps, if they are willing
to give up their exclusion from anti-trust laws and other special
privileges they are granted.
University type public institutions, may be a different story.
Olympics still another "show" in question.
Are we to have the next Olympics limited to viewing by only those
Americans who can pay for cable?
By creating a private viewing of the Rose Bowl, they have broken a 60
year tradition Americans have had and expected.
If we're going to privatize it, then how about paying the college
players for their labor?
John Higdon
<34a6865a-ce11-4d61...@i25g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
gvk2 <gvk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> By creating a private viewing of the Rose Bowl, they have broken a 60
> year tradition Americans have had and expected.
> If we're going to privatize it, then how about paying the college
> players for their labor?
I don't think "tradition" counts for much in contract law. If someone
buys the TV rights to an event THEY, not the over-the-air receiving
public, have the rights.
John Higdon
<0003a749-7c6f-46d0...@i32g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
gvk2 <gvk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Meaning the "bowl games" in particular.
> After 60 years of being able to view the Rose Bowl, yes some people
> think it is their "right" to view it without paying a monthly fee.
> Knowing that the football product normally involves public
> universities. This isn't even private professional sports.
If that institution, public or private, sells the rights to something,
the buyer of the rights can do what he pleases within the scope of the
contract. I don't recall ever contracting for the right to see ANYTHING
on broadcast TV.
> What is next... The World's Olympics viewed only by those who can pay
> a monthly fee?
If the owners of those rights so decide...
> Loose use of the word "right"... that most here understand.
> Not everything we assume is a traditional right is enumerated in the
> Constitution or Amendments.
Exactly. Most rights are defined in contracts. If someone suddenly
starts charging for some event or program, I would bet my car that he
can show you that he has the right to do so...in a signed contract.
Ras Mikael Enoch
Higdon you cunt
you are part of the conspiracy that framed me !
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/framed_at_kkup
John T
> In article
> <34a6865a-ce11-4d61...@i25g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> gvk2<gvk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> If we're going to privatize it, then how about paying the college
>> players for their labor?
>
> I don't think "tradition" counts for much in contract law. If someone
> buys the TV rights to an event THEY, not the over-the-air receiving
> public, have the rights.
>
ESPN and other cable networks often sell games to local stations. The
stations get ad avails, and it can be profitable. Sometimes the
biggest profit is community PR value beyond advertising revenues.
KGO-TV and KPIX/KBCW have shown 49er games from ESPN. Unless there was
some contractual reason for ESPN to withhold the game from
broadcasters, someone in the market *could* have bought the game.
Apparently no local station saw enough value in the Rose Bowl to make
them contract for the game. There were no California teams and no
other compelling local interest, after all.
JT
--
John T
> On Jan 1, 6:20 pm, Phil Kane<Phil.K...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:30:03 -0800 (PST), gvk2<gvk2...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a first time major change in what most Americans had come to
>>> view as a right.
>>
>> You have got to be kidding, sir.....
>
>
> What is next... The World's Olympics viewed only by those who can pay
> a monthly fee?
>
In fact, that has occurred in part several times already with NBC
showing only pre-recorded events in prime time while live and less
popular events were carried on CNBC and TBS.
JT
--
spamtrap1888
> Rather surprising that for the first time, starting January 1st,
> 2011, all the major bowl games will be limited to those viewers who
> pay for cable or satellite.
> Only ESPN will carry these games.
Surprising the OP has not noticed ESPN carried all but a couple of
this season's bowl games. There was the Outback Bowl to watch on
antenna TV.
> Thus those several million homes getting their TV via the airwaves are
> "in the dark"...
> But one more step in the stratification of American Society.
Eliminating people who don't want to shell out $500 a year to watch TV
made business sense to the sports leagues. Try watching regular season
NCAA games over the air, by the way.
> How long before the NFL, the NBA, and MLB reach contracts that ONLY
> allow those paying for TV to get the games?
OP is not an A's fan, apparently. Nor does he watch the divisional or
league championship series. The future came several years ago now.
I applaud the Giants for running the occasional Friday night game on
Channel 11.
>
> I didn't watch today, but was the Rose Bowl Parade even covered by
> the major networks?
Channel 36 ran KTLA's coverage several times yesterday.
> Wait until the Super Bowl is "pay only".
I'd just bring guacamole and a 12pack to a friend's house.
Patty Winter
In article <markmellin-C9931...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Mark Mellin <markm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article
><16d11c6d-e10b-4b36...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> gvk2 wrote:
>
>> I didn't watch today, but was the Rose Bowl Parade even covered by
>> the major networks?
>
> I don't now from network coverage, but locally KNTV and KICU
> broadcast the parade.
KNTV's coverage would have been the NBC feed, no?
Personally, I was over on cable switching between Hallmark (which
was carrying KTLA's feed) and HGTV. But I saw in the listings that
NBC and ABC were also carrying it.
I'm sure that KICU's coverage would have been from KTLA.
Patty
Phil Kane
wrote:
>> >This is a first time major change in what most Americans had come to
>> >view as a right.
>>
>> You have got to be kidding, sir.....
>
>Meaning the "bowl games" in particular.
>After 60 years of being able to view the Rose Bowl, yes some people
>think it is their "right" to view it without paying a monthly fee.
>Knowing that the football product normally involves public
>universities. This isn't even private professional sports.
You did say "think it is their 'right' to view it without paying a
monthly fee". "They" can think whatever they want. The team is the
one who decides who - or if - can carry their game on TV, whether OTA
or on cable/satellite.
"They" don't have the "right" to enter the stadium without buying a
ticket, either.
>What is next... The World's Olympics viewed only by those who can pay
>a monthly fee?
Sounds good to me. When the Olympics are televised, the programs that
I want to watch are all preempted by sports competitions that I don't
want to watch.
>Loose use of the word "right"... that most here understand.
Loose or tight, it's nonsense.
>Not everything we assume is a traditional right is enumerated in the
>Constitution or Amendments.
Start spouting about your "right" to watch football games on free
television and be laughed out of court.... :-)
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR
Bhairitu
> Start spouting about your "right" to watch football games on free
> television and be laughed out of court.... :-)
> --
> Phil Kane
> Beaverton, OR
>
What I don't like about cable is that we non-sports fans wind up
subsidizing the sports fans. I think it was here that someone posted a
report that showed that only 30% of the viewing public are sports fans.
And look at December offerings on the networks. Too many shows on
hiatus to the extent I watched very little on cable (mostly Netflix).
Maybe we should get a discount for December.
John Higdon
Bhairitu <nooz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 01/02/2011 12:54 PM, Phil Kane wrote:
>
> > Start spouting about your "right" to watch football games on free
> > television and be laughed out of court.... :-)
> > --
> > Phil Kane
> > Beaverton, OR
> >
>
> What I don't like about cable is that we non-sports fans wind up
> subsidizing the sports fans. I think it was here that someone posted a
> report that showed that only 30% of the viewing public are sports fans.
One of Dish Networks sales pitches holds that DirecTV customers all
subsidize outrageously expensive sports packages such as one with the
NFL, even if they don't watch sports.
One of the reasons I abandoned over-the-air TV is that it stopped
showing anything I cared to watch. It didn't occur to me to protest that
fact to them. Besides, I have many other entertainment choices.
gvk2
>
> One of the reasons I abandoned over-the-air TV is that it stopped
> showing anything I cared to watch. It didn't occur to me to protest that
> fact to them. Besides, I have many other entertainment choices.
>
Not me, I've got my $20 "digital" set top box and enjoy the magic of
the airwaves for free, as God intended...
It all rather Zen. Instead of finding discontent in what they offer
you, merely adapt your taste. (known in the sixties as "going with the
flow")
For example...the 11-2 choice has continuous weather, but without
those annoying weather people we see on 7-3.
Just the weather facts accompanied by 1 of 4 well designed tunes that
repeat and repeat in a mantra like fashion.
The only disruption of the calm presented by that station was last
summer, when Livermore's "low" temp continued to be 33 degrees
Fahrenheit well into July. After a few months of that I called NBC-11
to inquire. They said in a very Zen fashion "Oh".
Soon the "low" temperature in Livermore went up.
I kind of miss that cool temp.
John Higdon
<9e4d9a89-0e6e-4c07...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
gvk2 <gvk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It all rather Zen. Instead of finding discontent in what they offer
> you, merely adapt your taste. (known in the sixties as "going with the
> flow")
Unfortunately, I couldn't lower my standards as fast as the quality of
the programming was deteriorating.
> For example...the 11-2 choice has continuous weather, but without
> those annoying weather people we see on 7-3.
Of course, that is available on the web on demand.
> Just the weather facts accompanied by 1 of 4 well designed tunes that
> repeat and repeat in a mantra like fashion.
Sort of like the little electronic music box on early Japanese phone
systems for music on hold?
> I kind of miss that cool temp.
As much as I might crave weather stats 27/7, I've succumbed to the
temptation of watching quality series and miniseries on HBO and
ShowTime. It's a fall from grace, but I may have lots of company in this
degraded state.
David Kaye
>One of the reasons I abandoned over-the-air TV is that it stopped
>showing anything I cared to watch. It didn't occur to me to protest that
>fact to them. Besides, I have many other entertainment choices.
In our household we had one of the top-tier Comccast services. We cut back to
very basic cable. In neither case have I found much on the cable networks
that I wanted to watch.
I did notice that the local on-air stations such as KCSM, KRCB, KTEH, KQED,
and KMTP were offering most of the stuff I wanted to watch. The only reason
we keep cable TV at all is because one housemate wants it. Otherwise I'd just
turn it off and stick an antenna on my TV tuner card.
gvk2
>
> I did notice that the local on-air stations such as KCSM, KRCB, KTEH, KQED,
> and KMTP were offering most of the stuff I wanted to watch. The only reason
> we keep cable TV at all is because one housemate wants it. Otherwise I'd just
> turn it off and stick an antenna on my TV tuner card.
I get KCSM, KTEH, KMTP, KQED, KNTV, Universal Sports 11-3, KTVU,
KRON, KPIX, KG07, KGO7-2, Ch44, Ch20, plus about 20 other stations,
though about a dozen of those are in other languages.
Some of those other stations broadcast Russian News (in English) and I
also get Japanese News (in English) and German News (in English) as
well as the BBC News.
One interesting station broadcasts in Italian with English
subtitles. I really can't imagine there is that large a audience for
Italian programs.
All in all, not bad for free. Right now I'd rather not pay $30 to
$60+ for more. Netflix is a better value.
Actually a good library selection is also a better use of one's time
and money.
Mark Mellin
> Mark Mellin wrote:
> > gvk2 wrote:
> >
> >> I didn't watch today, but was the Rose Bowl Parade even covered by
> >> the major networks?
> >
> > I don't now from network coverage, but locally KNTV and KICU
> > broadcast the parade.
>
> I'm sure that KICU's coverage would have been from KTLA.
It was, in fact, and not bad coverage at that. It has been
years since I took time out to watch the parade.
An article in the NYTimes last week discussed the migration
of college bowl games from broadcast television to ESPN, and
the resultant drop in viewers. Apparently ESPN outbid Fox for
a majority of the bowl games, in a deal that will last through
2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/sports/ncaafootball/06sandomir.html>
Patty Winter
In article <markmellin-81925...@C-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Mark Mellin <markm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <4d20d999$0$44035$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Patty Winter wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure that KICU's coverage would have been from KTLA.
>
> It was, in fact, and not bad coverage at that.
KTLA is *the* station in Southern California to watch the parade on.
They start their coverage around 3:00 a.m. with behind-the-scenes
specials, a repeat of the previous year's parade, a "pre-game show,"
etc. Then after the live coverage they repeat the parade several
times that day.
Patty
Phil Kane
wrote:
>KTLA is *the* station in Southern California to watch the parade on.
My wife, who is the Certified Parade Watcher, prefers the HGTV
broadcast over all the others. Is that a KTLA feed?
spamtrap1888
Did Bob Eubanks do the play-by-play? Then it was the KTLA feed.
Patty Winter
In article <t017j6pa0jsi02doo...@4ax.com>,
Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
>
>My wife, who is the Certified Parade Watcher, prefers the HGTV
>broadcast over all the others. Is that a KTLA feed?
No, as I mentioned earlier, Hallmark was carrying KTLA's feed,
and I switched between that and HGTV's coverage, which is always
interesting because they have a horticultural bent.
Patty
Jim
> What I don't like about cable is that we non-sports fans wind up
> subsidizing the sports fans.
I like series like "Breaking Bad" in which Walter White, high
school chem teacher and synthesizer of blue crystal meth
justifies every kind of reprehensible crime -- even posts
off-topic on Internet, I betcha -- in the name of business.
He has advanced lung cancer, and has miraculously
lasted for three seasons so far. He turned to drug
manufacturing to pay medical expenses.
And "Mad Men". Who could not like that?