The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

grampi wrote:yes, only the NFL can authorize who sells the Ticket, but they aren't providing it to the customers. They only provide it to the middle man, which in this cae is DTV. Since the NFL has chosen that DTV will have the exclusive rights, the Ticket is therefore not available in a free market. It exists only in a monopoly, which means there is no competition for pricing.

OK, now you're arguing something new. Earlier you were saying, the NFL could make more money by not making the Ticket exclusive. Now you're arguing that to alleviate fan costs, the NFL should make less money to keep DTV from having exclusivity. Anyone who wants to see a game still can. I don't live in the DC viewing area, and I don't have DTV, and yet I see every Skins game, every year. No one is forcing you to pay for the luxury of being able to watch your team from your couch.

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:yes, only the NFL can authorize who sells the Ticket, but they aren't providing it to the customers. They only provide it to the middle man, which in this cae is DTV. Since the NFL has chosen that DTV will have the exclusive rights, the Ticket is therefore not available in a free market. It exists only in a monopoly, which means there is no competition for pricing.

OK, now you're arguing something new. Earlier you were saying, the NFL could make more money by not making the Ticket exclusive. Now you're arguing that to alleviate fan costs, the NFL should make less money to keep DTV from having exclusivity. Anyone who wants to see a game still can. I don't live in the DC viewing area, and I don't have DTV, and yet I see every Skins game, every year. No one is forcing you to pay for the luxury of being able to watch your team from your couch.

I'm not saying anything different than I've been saying all along. The NFL could make more money if the Ticket wasn't exclusively available from DTV, AND subscription rates would also be lower for subscribers because there would actually be competition in the market then. I agree, the Ticket is a luxury item, but that doesn't change the fact that it's overpriced, or that it could be priced lower if it wasn't available only from DTV....

grampi wrote:I agree, the Ticket is a luxury item, but that doesn't change the fact that it's overpriced.

That statement is diametrically opposed to this:

grampi wrote:This also means they can keep jacking up the price as long as people keep subscribing...

Basic economics.

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:I agree, the Ticket is a luxury item, but that doesn't change the fact that it's overpriced.

That statement is diametrically opposed to this:

grampi wrote:This also means they can keep jacking up the price as long as people keep subscribing...

Basic economics.

Perhaps you're missing the monopoly part....

Perhaps you're missing the market rates part. It isn't overpriced if you are willing to pay that much for it.

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:I agree, the Ticket is a luxury item, but that doesn't change the fact that it's overpriced.

That statement is diametrically opposed to this:

grampi wrote:This also means they can keep jacking up the price as long as people keep subscribing...

Basic economics.

Perhaps you're missing the monopoly part....

The NFL doesn't have a monopoly. Anyone is free to start a football league to compete with them

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The NFL doesn't have a monopoly

But they do have congressional anti-trust protection.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The NFL doesn't have a monopoly

But they do have congressional anti-trust protection.

I thought only baseball had an anti-trust exemption. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I didn't know they had one. Actually I thought the players were threatening to sue them for anti-trust.

The whole concept of anti-trust between teams is stupid anyway. The "business" is the NFL, not the individual teams. McDonalds benefits if Burger King suffers. NFL teams don't benefit when other teams are financially struggling, they are harmed. Anti-trust is from the perspective of the consumer and clearly fans of teams aren't harmed by the teams working together, they benefit. Applying anti-trust within leagues is just more government abomination regarding the free market system.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:I agree, the Ticket is a luxury item, but that doesn't change the fact that it's overpriced.

That statement is diametrically opposed to this:

grampi wrote:This also means they can keep jacking up the price as long as people keep subscribing...

Basic economics.

Perhaps you're missing the monopoly part....

The NFL doesn't have a monopoly. Anyone is free to start a football league to compete with them

You're right, the NFL doesn't have a monopoly, DTV does. You sure are having a hard time grasping this for someone whose supposedly had more than just basic economincs....

grampi wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:I agree, the Ticket is a luxury item, but that doesn't change the fact that it's overpriced.

That statement is diametrically opposed to this:

grampi wrote:This also means they can keep jacking up the price as long as people keep subscribing...

Basic economics.

Perhaps you're missing the monopoly part....

The NFL doesn't have a monopoly. Anyone is free to start a football league to compete with them

You're right, the NFL doesn't have a monopoly, DTV does. You sure are having a hard time grasping this for someone whose supposedly had more than just basic economincs....

Wrong again, grampi. For DTV to have a monopoly, there would have to be no other TV providers. What they have is exclusive rights to market a product sold by the NFL. The fact that no other TV providers offer this product does not make the business a monopoly. What's more, they don't even have exclusive rights to broadcast NFL games. All the networks pay dearly for that right, too. The product that DTV is selling is a bundle of all the games. I suggest you cancel your satellite service and watch broadcast TV.

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:I agree, the Ticket is a luxury item, but that doesn't change the fact that it's overpriced.

That statement is diametrically opposed to this:

grampi wrote:This also means they can keep jacking up the price as long as people keep subscribing...

Basic economics.

Perhaps you're missing the monopoly part....

The NFL doesn't have a monopoly. Anyone is free to start a football league to compete with them

You're right, the NFL doesn't have a monopoly, DTV does. You sure are having a hard time grasping this for someone whose supposedly had more than just basic economincs....

Wrong again, grampi. For DTV to have a monopoly, there would have to be no other TV providers. What they have is exclusive rights to market a product sold by the NFL. The fact that no other TV providers offer this product does not make it a monopoly.

The fact that no other providers CAN offer this product makes it monopoly....

grampi wrote:The fact that no other providers CAN offer this product makes it monopoly....

No, it doesn't. Otherwise they would be in defiance of the anti-trust act, and the government would break them up.

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:The fact that no other providers CAN offer this product makes it monopoly....

No, it doesn't. Otherwise they would be in defiance of the anti-trust act, and the government would break them up.

If DTV being the only provider that can sell the Ticket isn't a monopoly, then I guess there is no such thing....

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:The fact that no other providers CAN offer this product makes it monopoly....

No, it doesn't. Otherwise they would be in defiance of the anti-trust act, and the government would break them up.

If DTV being the only provider that can sell the Ticket isn't a monopoly, then I guess there is no such thing....

You obviously don't know what a monoploy is. Look at it this way: Say Foot Locker made a deal with Nike, that only they could sell all the different shoes Nike makes. All the other shoe stores could still sell Nikes, just not all of their models. Would Foot Locker be a monopoly?

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:The fact that no other providers CAN offer this product makes it monopoly....

No, it doesn't. Otherwise they would be in defiance of the anti-trust act, and the government would break them up.

If DTV being the only provider that can sell the Ticket isn't a monopoly, then I guess there is no such thing....

In order for DTV to be a monopoly they would have to be so large that there is no other practical means of obtaining ANY programming. That is not the case. This is simply a case of one provider among many that has an exclusive offering that is not available from any of it's competitors. Kind of like when AT&T was the only cellular provider that could offer the iPhone.

Countertrey wrote:

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:The fact that no other providers CAN offer this product makes it monopoly....

No, it doesn't. Otherwise they would be in defiance of the anti-trust act, and the government would break them up.

If DTV being the only provider that can sell the Ticket isn't a monopoly, then I guess there is no such thing....

This is simply a case of one provider among many that has an exclusive offering that is not available from any of it's competitors.

It's the fact that it CAN'T be made available from any other providers that makes a monopoly....

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:The fact that no other providers CAN offer this product makes it monopoly....

No, it doesn't. Otherwise they would be in defiance of the anti-trust act, and the government would break them up.

If DTV being the only provider that can sell the Ticket isn't a monopoly, then I guess there is no such thing....

You obviously don't know what a monoploy is. Look at it this way: Say Foot Locker made a deal with Nike, that only they could sell all the different shoes Nike makes. All the other shoe stores could still sell Nikes, just not all of their models. Would Foot Locker be a monopoly?

How is that anything like what goes on with the Ticket? It's an irrelivent comparison...

Ahhhh... good to live @ home in the DC area where I don't need the ticket.

Here is Webster's definition of monopoly:

Exclusive control of a commodity or service in a given market, or control that makes possible the fixing of prices and the virtual elimination of free competition.

That describes what DTV has with the Ticket to a tee....

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:The fact that no other providers CAN offer this product makes it monopoly....

No, it doesn't. Otherwise they would be in defiance of the anti-trust act, and the government would break them up.

If DTV being the only provider that can sell the Ticket isn't a monopoly, then I guess there is no such thing....

You obviously don't know what a monoploy is. Look at it this way: Say Foot Locker made a deal with Nike, that only they could sell all the different shoes Nike makes. All the other shoe stores could still sell Nikes, just not all of their models. Would Foot Locker be a monopoly?

How is that anything like what goes on with the Ticket? It's an irrelivent comparison...

It's exactly the same. Substitute Foot Locker for DTV, Nike for the NFL, and shoe models for football games. CT's iPhone example was also good.

Are you just screwing with us, or do you seriously not understand why DTV is not a monopoly because they have exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket?

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:The fact that no other providers CAN offer this product makes it monopoly....

No, it doesn't. Otherwise they would be in defiance of the anti-trust act, and the government would break them up.

If DTV being the only provider that can sell the Ticket isn't a monopoly, then I guess there is no such thing....

You obviously don't know what a monoploy is. Look at it this way: Say Foot Locker made a deal with Nike, that only they could sell all the different shoes Nike makes. All the other shoe stores could still sell Nikes, just not all of their models. Would Foot Locker be a monopoly?

How is that anything like what goes on with the Ticket? It's an irrelivent comparison...

It's exactly the same. Substitute Foot Locker for DTV, Nike for the NFL, and shoe models for football games. CT's iPhone example was also good.

Are you just screwing with us, or do you seriously not understand why DTV is not a monopoly because they have exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket?

It's not the same and here's why. We don't pay for the games we watch that aren't broadcast on the Ticket. Those games are free. Big difference from your example....

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:The fact that no other providers CAN offer this product makes it monopoly....

No, it doesn't. Otherwise they would be in defiance of the anti-trust act, and the government would break them up.

If DTV being the only provider that can sell the Ticket isn't a monopoly, then I guess there is no such thing....

You obviously don't know what a monoploy is. Look at it this way: Say Foot Locker made a deal with Nike, that only they could sell all the different shoes Nike makes. All the other shoe stores could still sell Nikes, just not all of their models. Would Foot Locker be a monopoly?

How is that anything like what goes on with the Ticket? It's an irrelivent comparison...

It's exactly the same. Substitute Foot Locker for DTV, Nike for the NFL, and shoe models for football games. CT's iPhone example was also good.

Are you just screwing with us, or do you seriously not understand why DTV is not a monopoly because they have exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket?

It's not the same and here's why. We don't pay for the games we watch that aren't broadcast on the Ticket. Those games are free. Big difference from your example....

So, you are screwing with us! I admit it, you got me.

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

grampi wrote:The fact that no other providers CAN offer this product makes it monopoly....

No, it doesn't. Otherwise they would be in defiance of the anti-trust act, and the government would break them up.

If DTV being the only provider that can sell the Ticket isn't a monopoly, then I guess there is no such thing....

You obviously don't know what a monoploy is. Look at it this way: Say Foot Locker made a deal with Nike, that only they could sell all the different shoes Nike makes. All the other shoe stores could still sell Nikes, just not all of their models. Would Foot Locker be a monopoly?

How is that anything like what goes on with the Ticket? It's an irrelivent comparison...

It's exactly the same. Substitute Foot Locker for DTV, Nike for the NFL, and shoe models for football games. CT's iPhone example was also good.

Are you just screwing with us, or do you seriously not understand why DTV is not a monopoly because they have exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket?

It's not the same and here's why. We don't pay for the games we watch that aren't broadcast on the Ticket. Those games are free. Big difference from your example....

So, you are screwing with us!

No, in order for your shoe example to be like what goes on with DTV and the Ticket, the retailers that are allowed to sell only certain shoe models actually wouldn't be able to sell them at all, they'd have to give them away for free.

I already admitted you got me; you don't need to continue the ruse.

grampi wrote:It's not the same and here's why. We don't pay for the games we watch that aren't broadcast on the Ticket. Those games are free. Big difference from your example....

No game is free, advertisers are paying the networks who pay the NFL to advertise to you. What you want is actually free games because DC advertisers don't want to pay for you since you don't live there. Nothing is free, Virginia...