Larry Miller:streaming SOON!

[PapaG]

Well, people in Seattle can see all the Portland games they wish if they have Comcast Sports NW. Are "local" teams ones that are 180 miles away? I guess I should tell people in Boston that the Yankees are their team.

Now you are just being obtuse. NY to Boston does not = Portland to Seattle in terms of a market. You know this, though. Seattle includes Portland as its NFL market.

BTW, you do know that every NFL game is broadcast by the national networks and not handled locally, right?

Correct. Another reason your "Sunday Ticket" argument is irrelevant, and always has been. Let's try to find a more comparable scenario.

 

[PapaG]

Well, people in Seattle can see all the Portland games they wish if they have Comcast Sports NW

.

People in Portland can see all the Portland games if they have Comcast Sports NW. If they live in Canby, however, they are shit out of luck.

What is your point? Last I checked, Canby is closer to Portland than Seattle.

 

[MARIS61]

A few things about this post.

1) I remember "BlazerVision". That was not free. We didn't even get to see some playoff games w/out paying for them. (The Minny series comes to mind).

True, but Blazervision was all home games, which most fans could go to. It also marked one of the very first NBA teams to charge for TV games, and was a miserable failure due to the ridiculously high price. Most bars had it and broadcast the games free to patrons. It also was the first thing that got the local media disliking Paul Allen.

2) FSN isn't "free", and that is who the Blazers were on for roughly 6 years or so. Sure, they allow all carriers to pick them up at minimal cost, but still, it was not a "broadcast" scenario.

FSN is definitely free to the viewer here in Beautiful Central Oregon, and I enjoyed the games for free every year until last year when the Blazers wanted them to pay way too much for the games.

 

[PapaG]

True, but Blazervision was all home games, which most fans could go to. It also marked one of the very first NBA teams to charge for TV games, and was a miserable failure due to the ridiculously high price. Most bars had it and broadcast the games free to patrons. It also was the first thing that got the local media disliking Paul Allen.

I remember my wife and I going to the Godfather's in Tigard to watch playoff games against the Jazz.

FSN is definitely free to the viewer here in Beautiful Central Oregon, and I enjoyed the games for free every year until last year when the Blazers wanted them to pay way too much for the games.

Technically, it wasn't "free", since you had to pay for at least basic cable to get it. There is a difference between "broadcast" and "basic cable". It involves more money and some wiring.

 

[MARIS61]

Really? Because I remember back in the Napster glory days, I paid nothing, yet got any song I wanted for free. Then the lawsuits started, and the convictions followed, and I started paying on iTunes. They may not be able to shut down the providers, but they certainly can go after those receiving games for free.

Apples and oranges.

If you merely listened to the songs, as we do with youtube, you were legal.

If you merely watch the games, without recording them, perfectly legal.

Rule of thumb = if you can view it on the internet for free, you're legal.

Not your fault it's there for all to see.

 

[PapaG]

Apples and oranges.

If you merely listened to the songs, as we do with youtube, you were legal.

If you merely watch the games, without recording them, perfectly legal.

Rule of thumb = if you can view it on the internet for free, you're legal.

Not your fault it's there for all to see.

That makes sense, MARIS. Is there a precedent set for this? If so, justin.tv, here I come again!

 

[MARIS61]

I remember my wife and I going to the Godfather's in Tigard to watch playoff games against the Jazz.

Technically, it wasn't "free", since you had to pay for at least basic cable to get it. There is a difference between "broadcast" and "basic cable". It involves more money and some wiring.

Here in Beautiful Central Oregon there is only cable, dish, and direct tv.

Unless you have an enormously effective antennae.

So if you had tv here, fsn was free (no extra charge).

Would I pay $1 a game to watch Blazers on my pc? Probably not. I could attend 8 games in person for that.

There are so many other things I could do with that money.

I could feed and clothe an orphan in Korea for example.

 

[PapaG]

Here in Beautiful Central Oregon there is only cable, dish, and direct tv.

Unless you have an enormously effective antennae. .

That's not true. You have local Fox and NBC affiliates, plus a Eugene CBS affiliate with a transmitter in Bend.

You don't have to pay for those channels.

 

[MARIS61]

That makes sense, MARIS. Is there a precedent set for this? If so, justin.tv, here I come again!

I believe if they could, they would go after the people re-broadcasting without their permission (justintv...) but it's nearly impossible to trace these people, then prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and extremely expensive to pursue. And if they do get to court how does billionaire Paul Allen, who stiffed many local Portland businesses for several million dollars through his "bankruptcy" awhile back, find a sympathetic ear in the jury box?

 

[PapaG]

I believe if they could, they would go after the people re-broadcasting without their permission (justintv...) but it's nearly impossible to trace these people, then prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and extremely expensive to pursue. And if they do get to court how does billionaire Paul Allen, who stiffed many local Portland businesses for several million dollars through his "bankruptcy" awhile back, find a sympathetic ear in the jury box?

It would never get to a jury. He would bankrupt his "example" case way prior to that with discovery requests, delays, and representation.

 

[MARIS61]

That's not true. You have local Fox and NBC affiliates, plus a Eugene CBS affiliate with a transmitter in Bend.

You don't have to pay for those channels.

Trust me, if you live 10 miles outside of Bend, you get zilch.

I live about 25 miles from downtown Bend and cannot get even a ghost of a picture or a garbled voice.

Our broadcast TV reception is just like our winters here, nothing but snow.

I was surprised how much I enjoyed not having it when we first moved here, and did not get cable for almost 2 years. My internet was dial-up, so I pretty much lost contact with the media world, except for music on the radio. Good times.

 

[barfo]

Would I pay $1 a game to watch Blazers on my pc? Probably not. I could attend 8 games in person for that.

You can attend games for 12.5 cents? Scalpers must be getting really desperate. I'd think it would cost much more than that just to drive to Portland.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

You can attend games for 12.5 cents? Scalpers must be getting really desperate. I'd think it would cost much more than that just to drive to Portland.

barfo

$1/game = $82

8 games - $10.25/game, by comparison.

 

[blazerboy30]

Well, for one, as someone who spends a lot of winter weekends in Bend, the HD package is not offered. It's low-def, and it sucks. That's the problem.

I'd be very surprised if the internet stream was better quality. The NBA leaguepass stream isn't better.

 

[barfo]

$1/game = $82

8 games - $10.25/game, by comparison.

yeah, I know, I was just being literal for fun.
But gas bend-portland-bend is probably $20 bucks at least, so if you buy gas and a $10 ticket to the game, you can attend less than 3 games for the (estimated) price of the internet feed. Add in a beer or a slice of pizza at the RG, and you are down to two games.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Now you are just being obtuse. NY to Boston does not = Portland to Seattle in terms of a market. You know this, though. Seattle includes Portland as its NFL market.

Just because the NFL considers Portland "local" doesn't make it so. Seattle has about as much in common with Portland as Philadelphia has to do with Washington, DC. Nice try.

Correct. Another reason your "Sunday Ticket" argument is irrelevant, and always has been. Let's try to find a more comparable scenario.

Not at all. The question was about tradeoffs. I live in Denver for most of the year, where the local basketball team is actually local--the Denver Thuggets. However, my team is the Blazers. The local football team is actually local as well--the Denver Broncos. However, neither of these teams are mine. I'm a Blazer and Redskins fan. I have a choice to see the Redskins in the comfort of my home if I wish; I can subscribe to DirectTV. I choose not to do so. Instead, I spend my Sunday mornings in a bar.

You live in ToiletTown, no? I believe that city has Comcast. Do you wish to see the Blazers from the comfort of your own home? Then switch to Comcast. Do you wish to keep another provider? Go to the games or go to a bar.

 

[maxiep]

.

People in Portland can see all the Portland games if they have Comcast Sports NW. If they live in Canby, however, they are shit out of luck.

What is your point? Last I checked, Canby is closer to Portland than Seattle.

People in Canby can go to the games or go to a bar to see the games. It's not an undue burden to someone living near Portland. The folks I feel sorry for are the ones who live too far to see the games and who aren't offered Comcast. The people who refuse to switch or who won't travel to a bar or restaurant to see the games? I don't have much sympathy at all.

 

[PapaG]

People in Canby can go to the games or go to a bar to see the games. It's not an undue burden to someone living near Portland. The folks I feel sorry for are the ones who live too far to see the games and who aren't offered Comcast. The people who refuse to switch or who won't travel to a bar or restaurant to see the games? I don't have much sympathy at all.

For Pete's sake, you're wrong. Just admit it. The games are sold out, and going to a bar costs money.

I realize you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong, so please, carry on...

 

[PapaG]

Just because the NFL considers Portland "local" doesn't make it so. Seattle has about as much in common with Portland as Philadelphia has to do with Washington, DC. Nice try.[/QUOTE}

Me posting a fact about markets = a "nice try". You're nuts, dude.

Not at all. The question was about tradeoffs. I live in Denver for most of the year, where the local basketball team is actually local--the Denver Thuggets. However, my team is the Blazers. The local football team is actually local as well--the Denver Broncos. However, neither of these teams are mine. I'm a Blazer and Redskins fan. I have a choice to see the Redskins in the comfort of my home if I wish; I can subscribe to DirectTV. I choose not to do so. Instead, I spend my Sunday mornings in a bar.

You live in ToiletTown, no? I believe that city has Comcast. Do you wish to see the Blazers from the comfort of your own home? Then switch to Comcast. Do you wish to keep another provider? Go to the games or go to a bar.

Great. None of the above nonsense amounts to a guy without Comcast, DirecTV, or Dish being able to watch his NFL local team in his local market if the fans sell out the games.

You really are incapable of saying you were making a foolish argument.

 

[maxiep]

For Pete's sake, you're wrong. Just admit it. The games are sold out, and going to a bar costs money.

There are always tickets available to every game. As for costing money, I wasn't aware cable television and electricity were free. If money is an issue, nurse a Coke/Diet Coke. It costs a $1.25 or $5.00 with tip. Enjoy the game!

I realize you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong, so please, carry on...

Wanna bet? I admit I'm wrong all the time. My wife will confirm it.

 

[PapaG]

Just because the NFL considers Portland "local" doesn't make it so. Seattle has about as much in common with Portland as Philadelphia has to do with Washington, DC. Nice try..

Except DC has an NFL team, and Philly has an NFL team. Also, as far as I know, there are no trains running from Philly and DC for Redskin games.

 

[PapaG]

the game!



Wanna bet? I admit I'm wrong all the time. My wife will confirm it.

Well, then log her on, because you are making a faulty comparison. I'm positive that you will just bombard this thread with post after post to drown it out, however.

 

[PapaG]

Just because the NFL considers Portland "local" doesn't make it so. Seattle has about as much in common with Portland as Philadelphia has to do with Washington, DC. Nice try.

Actually, it does make it in this instance, at least in terms of your "Sunday Ticket" argument.

Plus, I already said you should focus on Portland, which you are not doing in your flailing attempt to regain some sort of control here.

 

[maxiep]

Just because the NFL considers Portland "local" doesn't make it so. Seattle has about as much in common with Portland as Philadelphia has to do with Washington, DC. Nice try.

Me posting a fact about markets = a "nice try". You're nuts, dude.

I don't recognize Seattle as my "local" market, just as I didn't recognize San Francisco or Oakland as my "local" market before 1977. Portland doesn't have a "local" NFL, NHL or MLB team, regardless of what the suits in New York say.

As for being nuts, that's a fair point.

Great. None of the above nonsense amounts to a guy without Comcast, DirecTV, or Dish being able to watch his NFL local team in his local market if the fans sell out the games.

You really are incapable of saying you were making a foolish argument.

When did we discuss TV blackouts? We discussed how I had no sympathy for those who lived within an area where Comcast served or where a company had agreed to terms with Comcast Sports NW and refused to switch.

And if there are available seats, why can't they just go to the game? You don't have a constitutional right to have every game broadcast into your home. Live with the pain. At least you're lucky; you have options. There are others who don't.

 

[maxiep]

Actually, it does make it in this instance, at least in terms of your "Sunday Ticket" argument.

Plus, I already said you should focus on Portland, which you are not doing in your flailing attempt to regain some sort of control here.

You don't get to set the terms of the discussion. Let's focus on the issue: Just stop whining about your inability to see the Blazers. You have several options to see every single game. It's not my fault you refuse to take them.

 

[maxiep]

Well, then log her on, because you are making a faulty comparison. I'm positive that you will just bombard this thread with post after post to drown it out, however.

She's sleeping. My comparison isn't faulty and my point remains uncontested: you live close enough to Portland to see every single game. Don't whine because you can't do it without changing services or leaving your house.

 

[PapaG]

When did we discuss TV blackouts? We discussed how I had no sympathy for those who lived within an area where Comcast served or where a company had agreed to terms with Comcast Sports NW and refused to switch.

And if there are available seats, why can't they just go to the game? You don't have a constitutional right to have every game broadcast into your home. Live with the pain. At least you're lucky; you have options. There are others who don't.

Actually, you have posted about the DirecTV situation as a comparative to the Comcast situation. They are not comparable, as I have pointed out at length. You keep trying to change your argument, but whatever. Plus, every Blazer game is sold out this year, so the "buy a seat" argument has no merit. I know that being right on this board matters to you, and that you can't stand being wrong, so I'll stop posting about it. You'll just change the debate no matter how long we post to each other.

 

[PapaG]

You don't get to set the terms of the discussion. Let's focus on the issue: Just stop whining about your inability to see the Blazers. You have several options to see every single game. It's not my fault you refuse to take them.

I get to see the Blazers when I want to see them. That doesn't mean that you're not wrong on the "Sunday Ticket" argument.

 

[PapaG]

She's sleeping. My comparison isn't faulty and my point remains uncontested: you live close enough to Portland to see every single game. Don't whine because you can't do it without changing services or leaving your house.

Where have I whined? I've only pointed out how faulty your "Sunday Ticket" comparison is compared to the "Comcast Situation".

Nice strawman. I didn't expect that from you.

 

[maxiep]

Where have I whined? I've only pointed out how faulty your "Sunday Ticket" comparison is compared to the "Comcast Situation".

Nice strawman. I didn't expect that from you.

You whined about Comcast when you have the opportunity to switch. I merely brought up that in Portland, I choose to have Comcast so I can watch the Blazers' road games at home. I sacrificed Sunday Ticket, which means I have to go to a bar to watch my Skins. Calling Seattle "local" is where your argument goes off the rails. Portland doesn't have a local NFL team. Salt Lake City's "local" team is the Broncos; is it reasonable to call them "local" or are they just the team geographically the closest? There's a difference.