What does a digital platform mean for Bills in London?

[Albany,n.y.]

Where am I going to be able to watch the game? Does anyone know?

http://www.wgr550.com/pages/9034669.php?pid=464226

The NFL announced on Monday that the October 25 matchup between the Bills and Jacksonville Jaguars will be available not only in local television markets, but it will be available on a digital platform to every fan around the world as well. The game will not be available on the NFL's Sunday Ticket package, according to reports.

It will be the first time in NFL history that a national regular season matchup will be shown on a platform other than a television network.

[Forward_Lateral]

WTF so we have to watch it online?

****ing stupid

[Ed]

Why would it be unavailable on the Sunday Ticket?

[feldspar]

I guess the game will be played at 9:30 a.m. ET on Sunday, October 25...which is week 7. I also guess that it will still be broadcast locally in the Buffalo market on TV.

Idiotic to not have it on Sunday Ticket. That's going to piss a lot of people off.

I guess somebody is going to pay for the rights to broadcast the game digitally over the Internet? Google or Apple or some such? I have no idea.

[jimmifli]

On TV in local markets only, all others must stream.

They are selling broadcast rights to streaming companies. The game might be available on youtube, or Amazon prime or Netflix etc. They just haven't decided yet.

[Jry44]

I guess the game will be played at 9:30 a.m. ET on Sunday, October 25...which is week 7. I also guess that it will still be broadcast locally in the Buffalo market on TV.

Idiotic to not have it on Sunday Ticket. That's going to piss a lot of people off.

I guess somebody is going to pay for the rights to broadcast the game digitally over the Internet? Google or Apple or some such? I have no idea.

Word. I know that I for damn sure am planning on using this when I talk them down on the price for this year. It will be interesting to see how their any game in any market marketing campain goes....

[Jry44]

On TV in local markets only, all others must stream.

They are selling broadcast rights to streaming companies. The game might be available on youtube, or Amazon prime or Netflix etc. They just haven't decided yet.

And it will be an absolute disaster. These online things always are the first time through. Guaranteed that the broadcast will either crash or keep dropping out due to a high volume of people accessing it.

[YardRat]

Bob Kraft -"Nobody gives a **** about Buffalo and Jacksonville, let's run the digital format test on that game."
Roger Goodell -"(Mmmmph) I ( hmmmmm) agree, (gurgle) sir (slurp)."

[Meathead]

just make the whole thing digital. players, coaches, the field, suzy kobler, all just in memory somewhere. if we would all just pretend its real then it would become real. just like championship wrestling. or like marcia and the cheater are doing to the real game anyway

[OpIv37]

So, first live test of a new platform....available for free to the entire world, international event....what could possibly go wrong

I have a bad feeling that I will be missing significant portions of that game due to "technical difficulties."

[better days]

Quite a while ago, I told you all it was a real possibility that this would happen.

And it is possible that you will have to pay if you want to watch this game if you live outside of the Buffalo area.

Bills fans screwed again.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Why would it be unavailable on the Sunday Ticket?

Doesn't anyone who has Sunday ticket have the ability to get it digitally?

My god do people not know how to hook a laptop up to a TV?

[better days]

Doesn't anyone who has Sunday ticket have the ability to get it digitally?

My god do people not know how to hook a laptop up to a TV?

The point is people that PAY for the ticket should get all NFL games.

And there is the possibility that this game will be pay per view as well.

Bills fans screwed over AGAIN.

[Night Train]

I'll put a video camera on my local monitor so you can all watch.


First, your payment must clear with Paypal. :assclown:

[Joe Fo Sho]

Doesn't anyone who has Sunday ticket have the ability to get it digitally?

If it's not available with the NFL Sunday Ticket package, I would assume it wouldn't be available with the digital aspect of the NFL Sunday Ticket package, no?


My god do people not know how to hook a laptop up to a TV?

You'd be surprised at how many people don't know how to do something as simple as that.

This has the potential to be terrible. If the NFL isn't ready for the type of bandwidth necessary, it's going to make a lot of people angry. Not to mention if anyone's internet connection isn't up to snuff, the game won't stream in HD. That's a big deal to some people.

Hopefully the stream is handled by either YouTube (google) or Netflix. These are probably the only 2 companies that I would trust being able to stream the game to millions of people simultaneously.

Personally, I'm all for the NFL streaming everything all the time. Anything that allows me to cut out Time Warner Cable is a plus in my book. I just don't understand why they would make this the only option. I would love to be able to stream live NFL games with my Netflix account, maybe be able able to rewatch them with the all-22 view or the sped up version of the game that only take 25 minutes to watch.

[Ed]

Doesn't anyone who has Sunday ticket have the ability to get it digitally?

My god do people not know how to hook a laptop up to a TV?
I can just stream through my smart tv so I'm not worried about it, but I just don't understand why they would make it unavailable on the Sunday Ticket when the whole point of the Sunday Ticket is that you have access to every game.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Quite a while ago, I told you all it was a real possibility that this would happen.


You did and I didn't believe you, because I never thought the NFL would be so dumb. I overestimated them again.

[OpIv37]

Doesn't anyone who has Sunday ticket have the ability to get it digitally?

My god do people not know how to hook a laptop up to a TV?
I have multiple ways to get the stream through my TV but:
1. We are paying for every game, we should get every game.
2. Streaming technology is imperfect and the reliability goes down with number of simultaneous users. I don't know what the demand for this game will be, but i am very concerned about technical issues with the stream that wouldn't be an issue if the game was just on Sunday Ticket.

It's bad enough that the team has to do the extra travel and that fans have to watch the game at 9:30 am. Now this? **** Roger Goodell.

[Ed]

I have multiple ways to get the stream through my TV but:
1. We are paying for every game, we should get every game.
2. Streaming technology is imperfect and the reliability goes down with number of simultaneous users. I don't know what the demand for this game will be, but i am very concerned about technical issues with the stream that wouldn't be an issue if the game was just on Sunday Ticket.

It's bad enough that the team has to do the extra travel and that fans have to watch the game at 9:30 am. Now this? **** Roger Goodell.
I'm assuming that's 9:30 AM east coast time. I'm going to have to watch the game at 7:30 AM and fans on the west coast will have to watch at 6:30 AM. I normally DVR every Bills game and will start watching about an hour after it starts so I can fast forward through the commercials and half time before getting caught up to the live action. I don't think I'll have that option if I have to stream. I have no problem with them streaming the game I just want it to be available through Sunday Ticket too.

[better days]

I'm assuming that's 9:30 AM east coast time. I'm going to have to watch the game at 7:30 AM and fans on the west coast will have to watch at 6:30 AM. I normally DVR every Bills game and will start watching about an hour after it starts so I can fast forward through the commercials and half time before getting caught up to the live action. I don't think I'll have that option if I have to stream. I have no problem with them streaming the game I just want it to be available through Sunday Ticket too.

Well, I wanted this game to be on FREE OTA TV like the London 9:30 AM game was last year.

And last year was the first time CBS & FOX televised games from the other conference when the Bills would have been the logical choice to play on Thanksgiving if that didn't happen.

Bills fans screwed again.

[OpIv37]

I'm assuming that's 9:30 AM east coast time. I'm going to have to watch the game at 7:30 AM and fans on the west coast will have to watch at 6:30 AM. I normally DVR every Bills game and will start watching about an hour after it starts so I can fast forward through the commercials and half time before getting caught up to the live action. I don't think I'll have that option if I have to stream. I have no problem with them streaming the game I just want it to be available through Sunday Ticket too.
Oh yeah, I don't mind the idea of streaming as an alternative. I just don't like the Bills being the guinea pigs.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I have multiple ways to get the stream through my TV but:
1. We are paying for every game, we should get every game.
2. Streaming technology is imperfect and the reliability goes down with number of simultaneous users. I don't know what the demand for this game will be, but i am very concerned about technical issues with the stream that wouldn't be an issue if the game was just on Sunday Ticket.

It's bad enough that the team has to do the extra travel and that fans have to watch the game at 9:30 am. Now this? **** Roger Goodell.

Streaming can be ok, I watched the entire NFL regular season that way last year. BUT, I have a very high speed connection and these were regular season games. Trying to watch streams of Sunday Night Football was much harder and the Super Bowl stream was a complete disaster.

[stuckincincy]

Streaming can be ok, I watched the entire NFL regular season that way last year. BUT, I have a very high speed connection and these were regular season games. Trying to watch streams of Sunday Night Football was much harder and the Super Bowl stream was a complete disaster.

Well, if enough folks worldwide stream it and it makes web traffic crawl, I shall blame it on the net neutrality lunatics.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Well, if enough folks worldwide stream it and it makes web traffic crawl, I shall blame it on the net neutrality lunatics.

The better solution was to consolidate more power in the hands of cable and cellular companies, I agree. They've been such faithful stewards and honest dealers so far.

[OpIv37]

Well, if enough folks worldwide stream it and it makes web traffic crawl, I shall blame it on the net neutrality lunatics.
Yes, because Comcast, which owns NBC, NBC Sports and numerous regional sports networks, would cleary do the right thing and devote more bandwidth so people can watch someone else's Internet programming that's in direct competition with their television sports programming.....

[stuckincincy]

The better solution was to consolidate more power in the hands of cable and cellular companies, I agree. They've been such faithful stewards and honest dealers so far.

Yes - terrible they are. No disagreement - I have T-W cable.

However, here is my view of net neutrality - via analogies:

There is a parking lot with 100 spaces. To get in, you put a dollar in the slot, a gate lifts, and in you go. A display is there, saying if the lot is full, or how many spaces are left. When you leave, the display decrements. Along comes one of those big stretch limos. Pops the dollar in. Then parks 90 deg., spanning nine parking slots. It took up 9 spaces but only paid for one. A car pulls up, display says too bad -all full. It's parking lot neutrality.

Or a restaurant. All meals cost the same. But along comes a fellow. Orders, then moans incessantly, demanding that this waiter wasn't good enough, gimme another one. Sends back the same meal others are happy with. Screams to have the cook leave the kitchen to attend to his complaints. demands to see the manager. Other patron's service deteriorates. Restaurant neutrality.

So the net neutrals have won - an internet to be controlled like a public utility by the government. Won't that be something?

[better days]

Oh yeah, I don't mind the idea of streaming as an alternative. I just don't like the Bills being the guinea pigs.

Streaming as an alternative would be great.

It is having streaming shoved down our throats with no alternative to streaming that I object to.

[OpIv37]

Yeah well, without net neutrality, Comcast could block the stream for the Bills/Jags game altogether, or throttle it back so slow that it would be unwatchable. People are cutting the cord and using streaming services as a replacement for over the air TV. For companies like Comcast and TW, that cuts into their main business. Since they also control the Internet, something has to stop them from blocking streaming video, especially since they have a monopoly over high speed Internet in many places

[sukie]

Yeah well, without net neutrality, Comcast could block the stream for the Bills/Jags game altogether, or throttle it back so slow that it would be unwatchable. People are cutting the cord and using streaming services as a replacement for over the air TV. For companies like Comcast and TW, that cuts into their main business. Since they also control the Internet, something has to stop them from blocking streaming video, especially since they have a monopoly over high speed Internet in many places

So you are saying Comcast could block all offered on Apple TV since they control the internet? Really?

[OpIv37]

So you are saying Comcast could block all offered on Apple TV since they control the internet? Really?

Yes. All they'd have to do is find the IP addresses that it's originating from and they could either block it altogther or limit it so stuff coming from that IP can only use a certain percentage of the available bandwidth.

It would be hard to get absolutely everything because it comes from multiple sources, all of which probably use multiple IP's, but it can be done.


Obviously this would only affect Comcast customers, but the ISP has a lot of control over what's allowed on the Internet and how much bandwidth it uses.

[stuckincincy]

Yeah well, without net neutrality, Comcast could block the stream for the Bills/Jags game altogether, or throttle it back so slow that it would be unwatchable. People are cutting the cord and using streaming services as a replacement for over the air TV. For companies like Comcast and TW, that cuts into their main business. Since they also control the Internet, something has to stop them from blocking streaming video, especially since they have a monopoly over high speed Internet in many places

I see your points, Opi. But however hard it is to defend the likes of cable or dish companies, they do expend billions to build infrastructure - which reflects in rates. What a mess it will be, when the internet service in the US is under the "eye" of the Feds and/or your own State's pub. utility commission. And then comes into the discussion of to what extent those arrogant snoots with dictate what is prescribed speech and what is proscribed.

The net neutrality crowd who screamed for their self-centered right to gobble up a bigger slice of the bandwidth pie at the same cost of those who don't are going to learn a lesson about dealing with the devil.

There is nothing wrong with folks paying more for a commodity the more they use it. If I were a "Netflicker" or a streamer, I would expect to pay for my usage just as I would expect to pay more for a rib eye steak than for a frozen burger patty.

What if there was football tix neutrality? One price for any seat - first come, first served?

[sukie]

Yes. All they'd have to do is find the IP addresses that it's originating from and they could either block it altogther or limit it so stuff coming from that IP can only use a certain percentage of the available bandwidth.

It would be hard to get absolutely everything because it comes from multiple sources, all of which probably use multiple IP's, but it can be done.


Obviously this would only affect Comcast customers, but the ISP has a lot of control over what's allowed on the Internet and how much bandwidth it uses.

Since it has been alleged that talks between Comcast and Apple fell apart when it was learned that Comcast is/was eveloping a streaming set top box like Apple TV/ Roku... Direc competiton, Why would Comcast allow Apple or even amazon stream now? To keep customers?

After all, Amazon and Apple are stealing "on demand " money.

Google Fibre would skyrocket.

I hope Comcast does this... Please please please... lawmakers would love this move.

Uverse would grab a huge chunk of customers.

[OpIv37]

I see your points, Opi. But however hard it is to defend the likes of cable or dish companies, they do expend billions to build infrastructure - which reflects in rates. What a mess it will be, when the internet service in the US is under the "eye" of the Feds and/or your own State's pub. utility commission. And then comes into the discussion of to what extent those arrogant snoots with dictate what is prescribed speech and what is proscribed.

The net neutrality crowd who screamed for their self-centered right to gobble up a bigger slice of the bandwidth pie at the same cost of those who don't are going to learn a lesson about dealing with the devil.

There is nothing wrong with folks paying more for a commodity the more they use it. If I were a "Netflicker" or a streamer, I would expect to pay for my usage just as I would expect to pay more for a rib eye steak than for a frozen burger patty.

What if there was football tix neutrality? One price for any seat - first come, first served?

Well if you want to stick with the football tix example, not having net neutrality would mean that all the fans who show up in Bills gear to the game at FedEx field have to fill obstructed view seats first before taking good views from Redskins fans, can only buy from one food/beer vendor and must share one bathroom that only represents 3% of the total toilets in the facility. After all, we can't have Bills fans creating lines that slow down Redskins fans.

[Joe Fo Sho]

I see your points, Opi. But however hard it is to defend the likes of cable or dish companies, they do expend billions to build infrastructure - which reflects in rates. What a mess it will be, when the internet service in the US is under the "eye" of the Feds and/or your own State's pub. utility commission. And then comes into the discussion of to what extent those arrogant snoots with dictate what is prescribed speech and what is proscribed.

The net neutrality crowd who screamed for their self-centered right to gobble up a bigger slice of the bandwidth pie at the same cost of those who don't are going to learn a lesson about dealing with the devil.

There is nothing wrong with folks paying more for a commodity the more they use it. If I were a "Netflicker" or a streamer, I would expect to pay for my usage just as I would expect to pay more for a rib eye steak than for a frozen burger patty.

What if there was football tix neutrality? One price for any seat - first come, first served?

I think you're assuming that the current internet providers are doing their best and couldn't afford to do better. That's far from the case. The thing is, people are absolutely willing to pay for better internet speeds. Look at Google Fiber. Can you explain how they're able to get users to pay $70 per month for internet? It's because it's the best internet you can buy. Google charges $70 per month for gigabit ethernet (both download AND upload) and gives away their basic internet for free. The free plan is 5Mbit download, 1Mbit upload. People are praying that Google Fiber comes to their city and are willing to cough up the money.

To take your restaurant neutrality example... It's more like everyone is perfectly happy eating overpriced Spam, meanwhile somebody comes along and demands a reasonably priced steak. It's not his fault everyone else is satisfied with garbage.

The world is advancing, and the internet in the US is not. Screw Time Warner and Comcast, they're garbage.

[OpIv37]

Since it has been alleged that talks between Comcast and Apple fell apart when it was learned that Comcast is/was eveloping a streaming set top box like Apple TV/ Roku... Direc competiton, Why would Comcast allow Apple or even amazon stream now? To keep customers?

After all, Amazon and Apple are stealing "on demand " money.

Google Fibre would skyrocket.

I hope Comcast does this... Please please please... lawmakers would love this move.

Uverse would grab a huge chunk of customers.
The main reasons would be to not piss off customers in places that have U verse or FiOS, but more importantly, they are given favored status as the only cable provider in their territories. If they pissed off enough customers and those customers complained to the politicians, you'd see competitors laying cable in no time.

[stuckincincy]

Well if you want to stick with the football tix example, not having net neutrality would mean that all the fans who show up in Bills gear to the game at FedEx field have to fill obstructed view seats first before taking good views from Redskins fans, can only buy from one food/beer vendor and must share one bathroom that only represents 3% of the total toilets in the facility. After all, we can't have Bills fans creating lines that slow down Redskins fans.

Not at all. not even close. All tickets are equal. There is no impediment to those who wear Bills' garb from showing up early enough to take the prime seats. I am not getting your vendor/toilet angle.

[Downinfloflo]

The stream will fine,And should not lag at all. Who the hell is going to be up at 9:30 am on a Sunday looking for an internet stream of the Buffalo Bills and Jacksonville Jaguars game.

[sukie]

The main reasons would be to not piss off customers in places that have U verse or FiOS, but more importantly, they are given favored status as the only cable provider in their territories. If they pissed off enough customers and those customers complained to the politicians, you'd see competitors laying cable in no time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/d/d4/Butthead.png

"Huh huh.. you said "Laying Cable"... huh huh."

[OpIv37]

Not at all. not even close. All tickets are equal. There is no impediment to those who wear Bills' garb from showing up early enough to take the prime seats. I am not getting your vendor/toilet angle.

Without net neutrality, companies can do things like limiting streaming video to a certain percentage of the available bandwidth. So, the undesirable Bills fans will be forced to use only 3% of the toilets just like the undesired Internet traffic that competes with Comcast's TV service can be limited to 3% of the bandwidth. Meanwhile, the remaining 97% of the toilets go to Redskins fans, just like the remaining 97% of bandwidth can go to Internet traffic that makes Comcast money, or at the very least doesn't compete with their other services.

[stuckincincy]

The stream will fine,And should not lag at all. Who the hell is going to be up at 9:30 am on a Sunday looking for an internet stream of the Buffalo Bills and Jacksonville Jaguars game.

I'd ask how many users there are around the globe, that have never, ever seen an NFL game, and will log on if only for the sheer novelty of it.

[sukie]

I'd ask how many users there are around the globe, that have never, ever seen an NFL game, and will log on if only for the sheer novelty of it.

Millions pissed that the QB sack didn't result in a "red card".

[RandolphDuke]

I use the NFL official stream to watch every bills game.

Some info:


Subscriptions to the NFL streams are already available to anyone outside of North America. They filter for IP address and credit card billing addresses.
The quality is very good. The refresh rate seems to be slower than broadcast TV, but it's still very good.
Bandwidth likely will not be an issue. Until this year, the NFL stream let every subscriber watch 4 games simultaneously.
The interface is easy to use and allows you to pause, rewind, etc.

[stuckincincy]

Without net neutrality, companies can do things like limiting streaming video to a certain percentage of the available bandwidth. So, the undesirable Bills fans will be forced to use only 3% of the toilets just like the undesired Internet traffic that competes with Comcast's TV service can be limited to 3% of the bandwidth. Meanwhile, the remaining 97% of the toilets go to Redskins fans, just like the remaining 97% of bandwidth can go to Internet traffic that makes Comcast money, or at the very least doesn't compete with their other services.

There is no such thing as an undesirable NFL fan. Long before cable and internet and satellite dish, pro sports - the NFL in this case, has lured customers like sheep to slaughter. Sports is one of the few business endeavors where you can wipe your feet off in the face of your customers, and inexplicably, they always come back begging for more.

I now know I erred in mentioning the NFL as an example. The innate, cultivated idolatry opened me up to straw man argument aplenty. But I'll toss a straw man right back at you: How can it be that the NFL is limited to the so-called "Gang of 32"?

Don't they (also) have a territorial monopoly? Should their offerings be subject to government regulation? How dare they charge more for the same product in WAS than they do in BUF?

[Downinfloflo]

I'd ask how many users there are around the globe, that have never, ever seen an NFL game, and will log on if only for the sheer novelty of it.

Very few...

[OpIv37]

There is no such thing as an undesirable NFL fan. Long before cable and internet and satellite dish, pro sports - the NFL in this case, has lured customers like sheep to slaughter. Sports is one of the few business endeavors where you can wipe your feet off in the face of your customers, and inexplicably, they always come back begging for more.

I now know I erred in mentioning the NFL as an example. The innate, cultivated idolatry opened me up to straw man argument aplenty. But I'll toss a straw man right back at you: How can it be that the NFL is limited to the so-called "Gang of 32"?

Don't they (also) have a territorial monopoly? Should their offerings be subject to government regulation? How dare they charge more for the same product in WAS than they do in BUF?

The NFL absolutely is a monopoly and they are granted a specific anti-trust exemption by Congress that can be revoked at any time. In fact, Schumer is on the committee that controls it in the Senate,and some people speculated that he could threaten revoking the NFL's anti-trust status if the league tried to move out of Buffalo (after all, they are the only NFL team that actually plays in NYS).

I don't know if Schumer actually played that card but it is a very real situation and its how the NFL gets away with being a monopoly.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Yes - terrible they are. No disagreement - I have T-W cable.

However, here is my view of net neutrality - via analogies:

There is a parking lot with 100 spaces. To get in, you put a dollar in the slot, a gate lifts, and in you go. A display is there, saying if the lot is full, or how many spaces are left. When you leave, the display decrements. Along comes one of those big stretch limos. Pops the dollar in. Then parks 90 deg., spanning nine parking slots. It took up 9 spaces but only paid for one. A car pulls up, display says too bad -all full. It's parking lot neutrality.

It's always somewhat mistaken to analogize digital goods to tangible ones, but the parking lot analogy is a decent one that would benefit from expansion.

Let's assume that in downtown Analogyville, company A owns the best parking lot. If you don't park there, two miles away is a free for all of street parking and other budget solutions. In a parking space neutrality situation, it doesn't matter what make of car you arrive in, the cost is the same and you are allowed entry. Now, admittedly you may wind up with some jackwagon abusing this situation like your limo driver above. So the city abandons parking lot neutrality and lets the companies fend for themselves.

Company A then decides that car manufacturers that pay them a premium get a guaranteed space downtown whenever they want it. In the event that the lot is full, they will find another manufacturer's car and tow it. Manufacturer X is big and established, so they can afford this premium. Manufacturer Y is newer and more innovative, but doesn't have the startup capital to pay it.

So what happens? Imagine you are a business owner and deciding what car to buy. Car X is more expensive because it has the guaranteed parking spaces. Car Y might be better suited to your needs, but you are a business man. You need to get to clients, and if your car gets towed then you are totally screwed. If you park two miles away and have to spend 20-30 minutes walking each way to your car you are at a huge disadvantage to your competitors. So now you have to buy from X, paying more for the car so X can cover the cost of the premium paid to A. Manufacturer Y starts losing business and is unable to compete in the market. In the "best" scenario, X purchases Y and incorporates Y's ideas into their own cars. In the worst case, Y simply folds and takes their innovation to the grave. Investors who were thinking of creating car company Z recognize that without the startup capital to pay A's premium, they can't survive in the market and the company never forms.

So what you wind up with is one parking lot company, one car company, and both of them charging consumers extra because of their consolidated monopoly power.




I now know I erred in mentioning the NFL as an example. The innate, cultivated idolatry opened me up to straw man argument aplenty. But I'll toss a straw man right back at you: How can it be that the NFL is limited to the so-called "Gang of 32"?

Don't they (also) have a territorial monopoly? Should their offerings be subject to government regulation? How dare they charge more for the same product in WAS than they do in BUF?

The NFL has been sued on all three of those grounds and lost each time. First, Al Davis sued the NFL for blocking his move to Los Angeles and won, so the team moved in the 1980s. Second, the USFL sued on antitrust grounds and they too won, however the damages were so small that the league folded anyway. When the XFL formed, they were able to use some NFL venues as a result of that suit. And American Needle sued because the NFL awarded an exclusive hat contract to New Era (pretty close to the hypothetical situation above actually) and the NFL lost at the Supreme Court 9-0.

The NFL, legally, is on some shaky ground. However, nothing will actually happen about it because challenging them involves billions and billions in upfront costs.

Exactly like the big telecom companies.

[OpIv37]

It's always somewhat mistaken to analogize digital goods to tangible ones, but the parking lot analogy is a decent one that would benefit from expansion.

Let's assume that in downtown Analogyville, company A owns the best parking lot. If you don't park there, two miles away is a free for all of street parking and other budget solutions. In a parking space neutrality situation, it doesn't matter what make of car you arrive in, the cost is the same and you are allowed entry. Now, admittedly you may wind up with some jackwagon abusing this situation like your limo driver above. So the city abandons parking lot neutrality and lets the companies fend for themselves.

Company A then decides that car manufacturers that pay them a premium get a guaranteed space downtown whenever they want it. In the event that the lot is full, they will find another manufacturer's car and tow it. Manufacturer X is big and established, so they can afford this premium. Manufacturer Y is newer and more innovative, but doesn't have the startup capital to pay it.

So what happens? Imagine you are a business owner and deciding what car to buy. Car X is more expensive because it has the guaranteed parking spaces. Car Y might be better suited to your needs, but you are a business man. You need to get to clients, and if your car gets towed then you are totally screwed. If you park two miles away and have to spend 20-30 minutes walking each way to your car you are at a huge disadvantage to your competitors. So now you have to buy from X, paying more for the car so X can cover the cost of the premium paid to A. Manufacturer Y starts losing business and is unable to compete in the market. In the "best" scenario, X purchases Y and incorporates Y's ideas into their own cars. In the worst case, Y simply folds and takes their innovation to the grave. Investors who were thinking of creating car company Z recognize that without the startup capital to pay A's premium, they can't survive in the market and the company never forms.

So what you wind up with is one parking lot company, one car company, and both of them charging consumers extra because of their consolidated monopoly power.





The NFL has been sued on all three of those grounds and lost each time. First, Al Davis sued the NFL for blocking his move to Los Angeles and won, so the team moved in the 1980s. Second, the USFL sued on antitrust grounds and they too won, however the damages were so small that the league folded anyway. When the XFL formed, they were able to use some NFL venues as a result of that suit. And American Needle sued because the NFL awarded an exclusive hat contract to New Era (pretty close to the hypothetical situation above actually) and the NFL lost at the Supreme Court 9-0.

The NFL, legally, is on some shaky ground. However, nothing will actually happen about it because challenging them involves billions and billions in upfront costs.

Exactly like the big telecom companies.
cincy just got pwnd.

[stuckincincy]

cincy just got pwnd.

Not quite. cincy doesn't care to type incessantly.

1. net neuties take bandwidth from others and don't care. If someone else in a diner got twice the food for the same price, they would squeal and claim "unfair!"
2. cincy stated he is no friend of cable companies.
3. cincy wondered about how companies that invested billions in infrastructure now may see that go down the toilet.
4. most importantly, cincy worries about the mindset that thinks that government control over the internet is ok as long as folks can get their content gloming off of others.
5. cincy has one foot and the grave and knows that the "me" generation is happily trotting into state control of any aspect of their life.
6. cincy knows how to take the broad view but gets forced into offering up simplistic analogies, realizing that "me" generation can't grasp broad concepts, but must find this or that phase or clause, not to investigate, to expand upon others' thoughts, but to make it a personal contest, get a victory, to see another "pwnd", as you say.
7. cincy believes in brevity.

[DesertFox24]

I pay for Sunday ticket and I hope Direct TV will allow us to stream the game on either their APP or sunday ticket subscribers can get access to the bills game. At this point though we are just speculating.

[feldspar]

I pity the fools that live on the West Coast, regardless.

If this game is not broadcast in recordable ways, they'll have to watch the game at 6:30 in the morning. Who the hell wants to do that?

[Historian]

Move back to Buffalo.

Problem solved.

[better days]

Well, a bit of good news, I heard last night that the game will be free to stream.

I still would have rather watched it OTA on network TV.

I heard the NFL is going to put together a package in the future of 6-8 games to sell for streaming, those games could be pay per view, depending on who buys the package.

[Historian]

No doubt trying to reach the "Poor schleps who have to work on Sunday" demographic, lol.

[DesertFox24]

I live in nevada. Getting up at 0630 on the weekend is not a problem. My alarm is my six and three year old oh and my two dogs.

Actually this will be awesome because at 1000 I can go off and do what ever else I want or watch the other games and just chill.

- - - Updated - - -

As long as it is free I can easily hook up to tv so no problem there

[mightysimi]

Game pass has been going for a few years. This isn't the first attempt at streaming.

[better days]

Game pass has been going for a few years. This isn't the first attempt at streaming.

This is the first time the stream is the ONLY OPTION to watch an NFL game.

[mightysimi]

This is the first time the stream is the ONLY OPTION to watch an NFL game.

Local TV in Buffalo and Jax is carrying it. So not the only option.

[DraftBoy]

You did and I didn't believe you, because I never thought the NFL would be so dumb. I overestimated them again.

Is it dumb because you don't like it or because you don't think it will work?

[DraftBoy]

If it makes money then good for the league.

If the argument is they are worried about ratings for TV then that's crap. College football has had games on around 9am that were being played in Europe for the past three years. Fans loved it because they got to watch football as opposed to the pregame show. Granted ESPN's College Gameday is a really good show compared to the crapfest that Sunday Countdown.

[better days]

Local TV in Buffalo and Jax is carrying it. So not the only option.

The only option for 99.9% of the country.

[mightysimi]

I would be interested to see how many Game Pass subscribers there are. If everyone of those guys can watch 4 different games at once, I think it will be alright. I also think you over estimate how many people would want to watch Buf Jax early in the morning for the east coast and stupid early in the west.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Is it dumb because you don't like it or because you don't think it will work?

Both

[DraftBoy]

Both

Putting what you like or don't like aside. Why don't you think it will work?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Putting what you like or don't like aside. Why don't you think it will work?

Streams have worked in the past when they are the alternate means of watching the event. Catching the overflow from tv, for example. But when it becomes the primary means, the traffic frequently overloads the service. The Super Bowl stream fell way behind the action, buffered frequently, and dropped many viewers.

[DraftBoy]

Streams have worked in the past when they are the alternate means of watching the event. Catching the overflow from tv, for example. But when it becomes the primary means, the traffic frequently overloads the service. The Super Bowl stream fell way behind the action, buffered frequently, and dropped many viewers.

But isn't comparing one of the largest sporting events in the world to a Week 7 football game between two bad-mediocre football teams a little unfair? I have no idea if its going to work or not, but I've heard great things about the NFL's streaming service through Direct TV. If runs like that has then this could be a huge hit since it would draw in more than just Bills/Jags fans who just want to watch some football at 9am on a Sunday.

[Joe Fo Sho]

But isn't comparing one of the largest sporting events in the world to a Week 7 football game between two bad-mediocre football teams a little unfair? I have no idea if its going to work or not, but I've heard great things about the NFL's streaming service through Direct TV. If runs like that has then this could be a huge hit since it would draw in more than just Bills/Jags fans who just want to watch some football at 9am on a Sunday.

Plus, like all things, streaming will become better and get more reliable as they move toward this way of distributing their content. Like you said, the stream through DirecTV is fine. They will need to invest a ton of money into their network in order to be able to stream something like the Superbowl solely over the internet. Why would they invest that much money without doing their market research to see if the people would be willing to watch the game this way? They wouldn't, and what a better test of their current streaming service than a game between 2 small markets that will be playing at 9am EDT?

If this turns into a pay-per-view type thing, I'm gonna be pissed though.

[mightysimi]

i would think this would do a little less traffic than the superbowl. probably a way to test it for the next one.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

But isn't comparing one of the largest sporting events in the world to a Week 7 football game between two bad-mediocre football teams a little unfair?

No, because the Super Bowl was also broadcast on television pretty much anywhere in the world that received a TV signal. The Super Bowl stream peaked out at 1.3 million viewers (http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/02/media/super-bowl-streaming-record/), about 1/100th of the people watching, and was struggling mightily under that load.

The average NFL game draws about 19 million viewers. If you halve that because of the teams involved, halve it again because of the time zone, and then halve it a third time assuming the viewers in the local markets are watching OTA, that's still ~2.4 million viewers.



I have no idea if its going to work or not, but I've heard great things about the NFL's streaming service through Direct TV. If runs like that has then this could be a huge hit since it would draw in more than just Bills/Jags fans who just want to watch some football at 9am on a Sunday.

I used the DirecTV streaming service all last year. It was better than FirstRowSports obviously but still a pale imitation of an actual broadcast. If they want to offer a stream on the side, I say great idea. If they want to offer a stream alone, it creates a huge problem.

[Joe Fo Sho]

If they want to offer a stream on the side, I say great idea. If they want to offer a stream alone, it creates a huge problem.

Is this solely just because you don't trust the NFL's ability to stream the game? You don't think the technology would ever get better?

Would you trust YouTube to stream NFL games? What about Neflix?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Is this solely just because you don't trust the NFL's ability to stream the game? You don't think the technology would ever get better?

"Ever"? Of course it will get better eventually, but are we going to overhaul the country's internet infrastructure in the next 9 months?


Would you trust YouTube to stream NFL games? What about Neflix?

No, because it's not about the service hosting it, it's about the technical limitations of streaming live content. When you watch a Youtube video or Netflix movie, it downloads the upcoming part of the movie. If your connection severs for 30 seconds, you don't even notice because it's already downloaded the next 90.

OTOH you can't pre-buffer a football game. If your connection fluctuates, as it often will when 2 million other people are hammering on the same content, then you start missing plays.

[Joe Fo Sho]

"Ever"? Of course it will get better eventually, but are we going to overhaul the country's internet infrastructure in the next 9 months?

You think we need to "overhaul the country's internet infrastructure" to stream the Bills Jags game?

[stuckincincy]

"Ever"? Of course it will get better eventually, but are we going to overhaul the country's internet infrastructure in the next 9 months?



No, because it's not about the service hosting it, it's about the technical limitations of streaming live content. When you watch a Youtube video or Netflix movie, it downloads the upcoming part of the movie. If your connection severs for 30 seconds, you don't even notice because it's already downloaded the next 90.

OTOH you can't pre-buffer a football game. If your connection fluctuates, as it often will when 2 million other people are hammering on the same content, then you start missing plays.

I see you have come around to my contention. Heh - I recall using telephone acoustic couplers and amazing (!) 300 baud transmission. We marveled at it. It was of course mostly ASCII back then, the old AT command set and compiling with Fortran...2 minutes for the handshake was pretty spiffy.

I still have an ISP that tosses in dial-up along with hi-speed, still have a junk box full of MFM, IDE, SCSI, PCi cards and a couple of serial external jobs. Got a cobbled-up Radio Shack breadboard with PROMs and DACs that could convert ASCII kyb presses to Morse code that I linked with a SW transmitter.

Gawd - that was light years ago... :p:












i

[IlluminatusUIUC]

You think we need to "overhaul the country's internet infrastructure" to stream the Bills Jags game?

To get an uninterrupted HD stream to millions of simultaneous viewers? Yes.

[Joe Fo Sho]

To get an uninterrupted HD stream to millions of simultaneous viewers? Yes.

I'm not trying to start a big thing here, but I think it can be fine. If it fails, I think it will be due to the NFL's ignorance not our internet infrastructure. We'll see I guess.

[better days]

I'm not trying to start a big thing here, but I think it can be fine. If it fails, I think it will be due to the NFL's ignorance not our internet infrastructure. We'll see I guess.

Well, there may be like a dozen Jags fans that stream the game.

The rest of the Jags fans can watch it OTA.

So I would say the vast majority of people that stream this game will be Bills fans.

The Bills have fans far & wide, the Jags, not so much..not even in Fla outside of Jax.

[mightysimi]

If Austin Powers doesn't introduce them as the Jacksonville Shaguars I think it's a wasted opportunity.

[better days]

If Austin Powers doesn't introduce them as the Jacksonville Shaguars I think it's a wasted opportunity.

Oh, behave yourself.

[DraftBoy]

No, because the Super Bowl was also broadcast on television pretty much anywhere in the world that received a TV signal. The Super Bowl stream peaked out at 1.3 million viewers (http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/02/media/super-bowl-streaming-record/), about 1/100th of the people watching, and was struggling mightily under that load.

The average NFL game draws about 19 million viewers. If you halve that because of the teams involved, halve it again because of the time zone, and then halve it a third time assuming the viewers in the local markets are watching OTA, that's still ~2.4 million viewers.




I used the DirecTV streaming service all last year. It was better than FirstRowSports obviously but still a pale imitation of an actual broadcast. If they want to offer a stream on the side, I say great idea. If they want to offer a stream alone, it creates a huge problem.

Thank you, didn't know the number broke like that.