Conference 7.286::sports_90

    	Hey Chris, I thought you didn't like government meddling?  8^)
    I will miss ESPN's coverage of the first two rounds, they were without
    doubt the best.  Kind of tough to prove CBS and ABC are conspiring
    to keep sports off cable tho'.
    
    				/Don

Chris, 

I agree with the fact that Joe Fan is the one that suffers. Those first 2 days
of the tourney were great days for Vacation.

ESPN are masters of coming and going, to and from, many games. CBS and
NBC have a hard time switching from 1 game to the 2nd game. We should
expect to see fewer games covered.

Also, Chris, we all know why you like the early round games better than
the Final 4, don't we ;-).

TTom

    
    It's nice to see that someone else takes vacation days to watch
    the first two days of the tournament.  Now I know I'm not crazy.
    And if I am, at least I'm not alone...
    
    Has anyone seen what CBS plans to do?
    
    RE: -1 
    You're right about ESPN being great at going from game to game.
    They've truly revolutionized sports coverage, and it'll be too
    bad to see it all in the hands of Brent Mushmouth.
    
    (I refer to ESPN as "God's Channel", since I believe that only
     He could have created a channel so perfectly suited to the 
     sports fan.)
    

    
    RE: -1
    
    I'd rather have a major dose of strychnine...
    
    It appears that CBS is buying all of the major sports programming
    in sight.  What else do they have besides their part of Major League
    Baseball, and the NCAA Basketball Tournament?
    
    That just reminded me - ESPN is doing 175 major league games
    next year :-)
    
    
    						Roland

    First of all, IBM did try to corner their markets and the government
    did slap an anti-trust suit on them.   It lasted about 15 or so years
    and cost us taxpayers a few bazillion dollars and a couple of acres of
    warehouse storage space for all the paperwork in the process.   The
    government dropped the whole thing in 1984, I think.
    
    Secondly, CBS.  Boy, aren't the "eye-in-the-sky" boys just in one heck
    of a spending spree on sports these days ???
    
    A billion here, a billion there ...  NCAA March Madness, Major League
    Baseball, NFL Football, and more ...
    
    There are lots of reasons for it ...
    
    One, CBS' television entertainment division is the pits.  NBC and ABC
    have absolutely crushed them.  CBS won the Neilsen wars for like 25
    years in a row or something.   Then NBC gives Bill Cosby a few million
    to play with and boom-boom, out go CBS' lights.   ABC has also whizzed
    right by the Columbia boys.  Say what you want about Roseanne Barr,
    Tony Danza, Alan Thicke, and the like but we watch 'em on ABC.
    
    CBS sees nothing but last place for some time to come if they
    concentrate just on entertainment.   None of the production studios
    want anything to with them.  Too many quick cancellations, too many
    broken promises, and too much competition from the other two networks.
    
    While CBS' laughs and jiggles are going down the tube (pun intended),
    along comes the big monster CABLE to wolf down some hefty chunks of
    overall market share.  There are more options, more channels, more
    stattions, more everything to choose from and the network biggies know
    that we have become a nation of tube watchers who sit with our remote
    control devices and ZOOM right past all the available channels until
    something sticks.  And it sure ain't usually a network.  Hell, I'll
    admit that I'd let the remote stick on MTV for a few minutes rather
    than an episode of "Murder, She Wrote".
    
    What makes a viewer, as he's whizzing by, stick on a channel ???
    
                              A *GAME* !!!!
    
    Hey, who's playing ???  Oh, this is the Seattle Mariners against the
    Texas Rangers.   This looks good.  I think I'll stay here.
    
    CBS knows this.  NBC and ABC do too.   CBS sees that its *ONLY* hope of
    catching viewers lies in sports.  Their entertainment division sips
    discreetly and cable TV is eating market share like mad.   Blockbuster
    sports events are their only salvation.
    
             *** They're buying these events to survive. ***
    
    Pure and simple.  They don't give a rat's butt that we're going to lose
    the ESPN-invented frenzy of the first and second rounds of March
    Madness.  They'll try to emulate it but they won't be able to.  But
    they won't really care because they have exclusive rights to it and
    they're out to survive.
    
    If you want to get mad at anyone or any organization, why not bust a
    gasket over the NCAA ???  Sure the CBS offer was impossible to resist. 
    The NCAA *knows* the struggle that CBS is in.  Did the NCAA care that
    CBS is doing this for their own survival and not for our benefits ??? 
    No, they didn't.  They NCAA saw a huge pot of cash on the table, raked
    it all in, and said "Phooey!" to the fans who now have to put up with
    an inferior delivery of the product.
    
    Meanwhile, the "student-athlete" continues to bear the weight of this
    billion-dollar sham.
    
    Ugh.
    
    Bob Hunt

Personally, right from the top I'll tell you I enjoy television.
I don't sit and veg out at night in front of it, but there are
entertaining and educational and sports shows I love to watch.

I am getting fed up with ALL of television, from SYNDEX to Brent
Butt_____r.

The one thing gets me even more flamed is the fact that so much
of the good sports I used to see on ESPN are no longer there.
I used to love hockey on ESPN, because I could watch a game
on either ESPN, Sports Channel, NESN or wherever....

But, there is hope.  CBS 'plethora' of sportscasters is not that
great.   Sure, Summerall and Madden are fine, and there are others
that I enjoy, but when you start looking at depth, you start hitting
the feeb-dweebs really quickly (i.e. Dan "He's all over him like
sweat" Jiggets).

So, perhaps this nation of sports fans will have the pleasure of seeing
CBS fall on its face....Bweent covering baseball...how quaint.


Finally, I might just buy a satellite dish.  Then, hopefully when I 
get tremendously BORED with watching network sports, maybe I can
patch into the feed of some Mexican soccer game...hell, maybe I'll
even learn spanish.


thanks for letting me flame,
Chainsaw

Hey Frank,

Doesn't your cable have SIN (spanish international Network) ?
Whenever I'm at my parents I can usually find a good soccer game on SIN.
Last week I watched Brazil beat Holland 1-0. I just turn down the sound 
(no speakey Spanisho) and put on some tunes and watch the games.


Metz

BTW- Sin usually has the best World Cup coverage you can get in the States.

Metz --

I don't think I have SIN.  I do have Univision (ooo-no-vis-e-on 8^))
and they carry Italian on Sunday morning, which is when I watch
This Old House, and Argentina (I think) in the afternoon.

My cousin has a dish and gets a whole bunch of channels, which
often has a lot of soccer.

Dumb question:  (for anyone)

	If I have a satellite dish, and live in New England, what
	are my chances of finding a satellite transmission of
	English soccer????

Chainsaw the Inquisitive

>Of course we all know who the real loser in all this is.  As usual, Joe Fan.
>I LOVED the 1st 2 rounds of the tourney.  Matter of fact, I probably enjoyed
    
    I heard that ALL the games will be broadcast.
    
    Cowboy
    

    I caint see how CBS will broadcast early round games - these happen
    during the day, and CBS will catch holy hell if they prempt the
    soaps for a few days.  You think sports viewers are loud and large
    in number - well daytime soaps have more viewers with louder lungs.
    
    No way will CBS do it.  
    
    Metz and Chain - I've received SIN and Univision and watched the
    games - and if yo ever see it listed, catch a glimpse of "El Show
    de Iris Chacon"  - that women has the largest butt in the history
    of show biz, and she wears those g-string type things - first time
    I flipped by and saw them quivering on a stage, I thought I was
    watching two sumo wrestlers head-butting! :-)  
    
          (              )(               )
          (              )(               )
             ^Her butt^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    JD

    
    re: CBS
    
    	I believe that part of the NCAA tourney package included more
    of the early rounds.   I believe that the NCAA was also concerned
    that the coverage of the early rounds would go away (without ESPN),
    so they made CBS commit to more coverage of the early rounds.
    	Now, what that means as far as sheer numbers are concerned,
    I don't know, but I can assure you that their coverage won't equal
    what ESPN was doing.
    
    							bill..g.       
    

    	No me gusta mucho soccer.  Soccer es por los wimpos.  Me gusta
    mucho Iris Chacon!!  Arriba!!  Viva Univision!!
    
    				/El Don

    re .10 (Frank):
    
    > Dumb question:  (for anyone)
    
    >	If I have a satellite dish, and live in New England, what
    >	are my chances of finding a satellite transmission of
    >  	English soccer????
    
    Not a dumb question at all -- SportsChannel New England has been
    televising English soccer lately on Sunday afternoons (I think it's on
    sometime around 3-4 PM).  
    
    
    py

I think Frank was referring to actually picking up transmissions that were
going to English TV.

You should be able to pick up a satellite guide at a newstand somewhere.
They usually list what channles are carried on which satelites and where 
you have to point your dish to in order to receive them.

You could ask in the proper football conference.
I think it's Balzac::football. 
Fans over there might be able to give you an answer.


Guess I'll have to wathc SIN more closely when I'm at my folks house.
Two Sumo wrestlers butting head to head under 1 g-string could be too much to 
pass up.

metz

>    
>    Metz and Chain - I've received SIN and Univision and watched the
>    games - and if yo ever see it listed, catch a glimpse of "El Show
>    de Iris Chacon"  - that women has the largest butt in the history
>    of show biz, and she wears those g-string type things - first time
>    I flipped by and saw them quivering on a stage, I thought I was
>    watching two sumo wrestlers head-butting! :-)  
>    
>          (              )(               )
>          (              )(               )
>             ^Her butt^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    
>    JD


Get thee *behind* me Satan! 8^)

If there ever was a note that sorely tempted me to respond with a
junk note it was this....

However, while I will watch for Iris' butt (wondering all the while if
it is big enough to stack plates on), I will try to catch the british
soccer on SC.

SC has advertised that, but I haven't found out when...thanks Paul for
the hint.

Chainsaw

    Chain, that was close enough to be considered a junk note!  I'll give
    you gredit though, almost 3 whole days without a JN is pretty darned
    good for the top JN'er of 1989!  :-)
    
    Hawk

    Frank,
    
    Not only could you stack plates on her butt, you could set a complete
    service for 12, complete with candlelabra and wine buckets.
    
    JD
    
    There's another Spanish station, GALAVISION, that also has some
    soccer on it.
    
    ALso, sometimes PBS stations carry a 1 hour show on british soccer.
    
    These spanish stations also have boxing on, and believe it or not,
    the spanish feed for the WWF.
    
    

JD --

Thanks for the info....

Question:  Could you get Elgays Teef on/around/in her butt?

Hawk, I was going to argue with you about that being a junk note
but what the heck...

Like Mr T's infamous crack-haid giving in, I have succombed....!!!!


Kelly Bundy 4 Ever (and policies be damned!)
Chainsaw


PS  the video is called "The /Don Iris Chacon Butt Watch Cruise and
    Synchronized Swim Video"

Change the title of this topic to 

	The Demise of Serious Noting....


Guess I gave into Satan like ol' Jim Bakker, Jim Swiggert,  Manuel
Noriega, Brent Mussberger (anyone that *bad* had to have sold his
soul), and even John Elway (I saw teef like that once in the Exorcist)...

Oh well....

(isn't that just special)
Chainsaw

    I agree with Chris and Bob (who would have thought that those two
    would be allied ?), this stinks, but it's economics and survival
    that we're talking here. 
    
    CBS' management also has made it clear that they will pay almost
    any price to get Monday Night Football, because they feel that it
    is a cornerstone of their plan to improve ratings.
    
    Actually, *that* might not be a bad idea - Summerall and Madden will
    pull viewers on Monday night like the good old days of Cosell,Meridith,
    and Gifford.    
    
    But the thought of Bweent Mooselover for MLB should send chills
    through any honest American .....
    
    DrM

On the other hand, ESPN can't be doing all that bad moneywise, since
they just gave Chris Berman a big raise...

It'll be a sad day when we here Bweent say "And it's a called third
strike".....

'Saw

    Roland, CBS doesn't have all of the sports.  NBC walked away with the
    NBA contract after CBS wooed MLB away.
    
    Frank (oh well, so much for the JN reduction):
    
    If you are able to pick up a European sattelite feed you won't be able
    to watch it.  The TV signals for Europe and the US are incompatible. 
    You can't even play a videocassete made in Europe on a US player.  I
    found this out while trying to have my father-in-law track down the
    Five Nations Tournament a couple of years ago.  If you are lucky, you
    might be able to pick up a feed from a Canadian network with a dish.

    Me gusta Iris Chacon tambien... �Qu� buena!  �Donde esta ella a David
    Letterman?
    
    -Walt 

re .28:

C'mon, Mac, you know I've been doing pretty well 8^), it's just that JD
got me off the wagon a little....

I'd forgotten all about that incompatibility.  I knew about the video
tape formats being different, just didn't realize that it carried over
to sats also.

Guess my does of British soccer will have to come from sports channel!


Thanks again,
Chainsaw

    Screw television.
    
    Read a book.
    
    Mark.

    As much as I do like ESPN's sports coverage, I do have a few complaints
    about their choice of programming.  I realize I am biased, but a good
    case in point was their coverage of the first ever Rugby World Cup. 
    The commentators were quite good and gave a good introduction to those
    who had never seen the game before as well as provided good commentary
    for those familiar with the game.  The games were broadcast at
    midnight, which was OK since they were played in Australia and New
    Zealand.  However, they were condensed versions of the previous day's
    games.  If they were going to do them late at night, why not do them
    live like they did with the America's Cup which was held in Australia? 
    If they were going to tape delay, why put them on in the middle of the
    night?  Then they claim that noone watches rugby!  How many casual fans
    are going to stay up past midnight to watch a sport they haven't heard
    much about?  
    
    I don't even want to discuss things like tractor pulls and fishing
    programs.

>>    Read a book.

Who's next in line for _Flutie!_?

j.

================================================================================
Note 98.31                   The demise of Cable TV                     31 of 33
HAZEL::LEFEBVRE "Noriega: Pineapple in the Can"       5 lines   5-JAN-1990 11:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>   Screw television.
    
>   Read a book.
    
>   Mark.

	I told you guys he's a yuppie.  I read a book once.  I didn't like it.

				/Don

    The lead note talks about "The demise of Cable TV" and quite frankly
    the direction cable is headed in that may be the best thing.
    
    I'm more concerned with all of this "Pay per View" stuff which cable
    has generated than with CBS buying up rights.
    
    In Boston they're now hawking Pay Per View to watch the Bruins play
    the Moscow Dynamo... that's the kind of stuff which would have been
    carried over regular TV38, but now they want you to pay for it.
    
    Luckily the networks don't have the mechanism to do pay per view
    where cable does and it's easy for them to convert regular cable
    programming to Pay per view.
    
    Maybe we'll get lucky and CBS will be willing to sell a portion
    of the early rounds to ESPN. But I'm more ready to have less games
    that a $49.95 Pay per view NCAA package which wouldn't be out of
    the question with the way things are going.
    
    

    > The games were broadcast at
    >midnight, which was OK since they were played in Australia and New
    >Zealand. However, they were condensed versions of the previous day's
    >games.  If they were going to do them late at night, why not do them
    >live like they did with the America's Cup

They probably showed the same feed that they show down under, and
guess what?  Down there, there on tape and somewhat condensed as
well.  Aussie fans are quite used to watching non-live events (except
for horse racing, for obvious reasons) and it doesn't seem to daunt them
in the least.

    >Then they claim that noone watches rugby!  How many casual fans
    >are going to stay up past midnight to watch a sport they haven't heard
    >much about? 

That's why they invented VCRs.  There is no point to staying up and watching
it if it's not live.

Dan

    >>  <<< Note 98.36 by HOTSHT::SCHNEIDER "Some folks trust in reason" >>>
    
    "Others trust in might"
    
    8^)

    > Screw television.  Read a book.
    
    Markie, I heard your p_name "Pineapple in the can" on the tube last
    night.  Did they get that from you, or you from them?
    
    :-)
    
    Ha'wk 

    What's your cut on this demise of Cable TV matter Mr.Schneider.  (Gotta
    get the other side of the isle's slant on this thing!)
    
    
    - Chris
    

While it's true that the Brits and the Aussies like those taped/condensed
sports programs (hey you oughta see them do a weekend of NFL in 1 HOUR!)
if you think that ESPN is "jobbing" us, I'm sure they'd be pretty receptive
to a letter.

Why?  Well, while ESPN is fairly big, they're not that old, and they are
still not the conglomerate that CBS is.  

I'll be if you sent a letter with your reasons why you think more Rugby
should be aired, then it might do some good.

I know they're located in Bristol Conn. Mac, and if you need the address
I'll be glad to get it for you....

Let me know if I can help,
Chainsaw

There are two factors at work.  First, there is no doubt that cable has brought
us *more*.  ESPN alone is televising 176 college basketball games this year.
USA has probably 40+ more games.  The networks are bringing us games
on the weekend.  It was once unheard of, but now its so commonplace, that
any reduction causes sparks.  Second, ESPN has attempted to step up as
an active competitor to the networks.  The dominance of their college hoops
schedule, the NFL on SUnday nights, the NHL for a few seasons, and the
coup de gras, a huge Major League Baseball contract.  They're certainly
not small potatoes anymore.

If I were CBS and were looking out for the best interests of the viewer, I'd
subcontract out any games in the tourney I wasn't televising to the highest
bidder.

Now, the liberal viewpoint.  The power of cable television is in all the wrong hands.
It is a growing and thriving industry able to exert huge monopolistic powers.
The competition offered by the viewers has been, and will continue to be
severely abused.  How could something like this happen?  Well, the Federal
Government has a Justice Department with an Antitrust division.  It is accepted
economic theory that one of the dangers of Capitalism is that it will eventually
turn competitive industries into monopolies which will maximize profits and 
screw the consumers (us viewers).

There was a time when the Antitrust division would have gotten after the cable
industry's ass and not let that occur.  The consumer's voice would have been
heard loud and clear by now in a competitive industry, by the laws of supply
and demand.  It is the job of the Antitrust division to ensure that these industries
remain competitive, which directly effects the consumers.

What went wrong?  Why hasn't the Antitrust Division done its job?  Well, this
country elected a president who thrived on people's innate greed.  He mumbled
a few things about less taxes (and then raised them more than ever before)
and balanced budgets (and imbalanced them more than ever before) and
trickle down effects to help the less fortunate (and the number of impoverished
in our society grew to its highest level since the Great Depression).  Part of
the Reagan Revolution was the figurative handcuffing of the Antitrust Division,
in order to help those poor folks known as "Big Business" who donated tons
and tons of money to help get Reagan elected.  They didn't like a watch dog 
which minded the interests of the public and stopped them from abusing their
end consumers.  And it worked.  Big Business got it's way, and the Antitrust
Division was forced to stop bringing charges against the abusers of the system,
and naturally, more abusers than ever started to go into business.

And simultaneously, the Cable industry began to grow out of its infancy.  Its a
product of the times.

Dan

    Dan, I know about VCR's.  I've got tape of all of the broadcasts except
    for the U.S. vs. Japan.  But how did things like Australian Rules
    football become popular?  Because people were flipping channels during
    regular viewing hours and stumbled across it.  The America's Cup
    coverage did fairly well, despite being on in the middle of the night,
    because it was live and because ESPN hyped the heck out of it.
    
    The Aussie/NZ feed excuse doesn't wash if it was true.  Canada carried
    many of the games live. 
    
    Frank, the rugby community has contacted ESPN.  The response was as I
    said, ESPN doesn't see much interest in Rugby (and pointed out poor
    viewership of the World Cup and a past U.S. Club championship as
    proof).  Part of that I was that ESPN itself hasn't advertised their
    rugby coverage, part of it is the poor reputation of U.S. rugby, and
    part of it is poor organization of U.S. rugby.
    
    Like I said, I am biased towards rugby, but I think they could have
    handled it better.  So what if they had to postpone the bizillionth
    showing of Big Foot crushing cars or someone pulling another largemouth
    bass of a lake.

    Thanks Dan, I needed that.  ;^(
    
    A couple of bones of contention though.  First, as far as the cable
    companies maintaining a monopoly over their individual jurisdictions, I
    believe it was *Congress* (i.e. Democrats) that made that ill-advised
    decision.  As a result you've got a situation where the cable companies
    are starting to act like God.  Raising rates.  Reducing services. 
    Making you pay for things you once got for free.  There were voices in
    Congress who wanted competition, but, if I had to guess, I'd say good
    old special interest lobbying (Big Busines in this case) got the last 
    (deciding) vote.  Can't blame Reagan for this, and, again if memory 
    serves, it was mostly the Republicans that were pushing for competition 
    between cable companies.
    
    All of this has precious little to do with the little CBS thing. 
    Perhaps my concerns will be unfounded if, as you suggest, CBS
    subcontracts some games to ESPN.  I sincerely hope they do.  I'd
    venture to say I highly doubt they will.  Their thinking might
    be along the lines of stiffling supply to create a pent-up demand,
    causing more people to watch the games that finally get on the
    airwaves.  This could, of course, backfire if interest actually wanes
    because not enough games are getting through, causing people to
    lose interest.  We will see.
    
    As far as the anti-trust thing goes, it's always been my belief that
    one of the cornerstones of the Republican party has been to increase
    competition to maximize consumer benefit.  You can wail on and on about
    Reagan catering to Big Business, but I'm not sure what kind of facts
    you have to back this up.  Indeed, both Democrats and Republicans alike
    will cozy up to anybody with a fat wallet, so your singling out
    Reagan as a unique offender will require some evidence.
    
    I'm not sure which administration was behind the AT&T breakup.  The IBM
    anti-trust started during the Nixon years I believe.  We need FACTS
    here, not FACKS (tm).  You're startin' to sound like you-know-who!
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    Dan, I can see how cable can become another Ma Bell, but there are some
    checks in place.  In many cases, individual cities negotiate the cable
    contracts, which should provide input from the community on what is
    wanted in that area.  The town of Shrewsbury, MA operates the cable
    themselves.  Cable has also opened up the airwaves to the people
    through the use of local access channels in many areas.  Here in Austin
    anyone can put on a TV show provide they take a free class on how to
    use the equipment.  The cost is subsidized through the monthly fees. 
    I've seen talk shows, variety shows, youth soccer, and high school
    football carried in addition to the broadcast of city council and
    school board meetings.  Some of the towns in Western Massachusetts are
    now being offered a choice between cable companies.

    >So what if they had to postpone the bizillionth
    >showing of Big Foot crushing cars or someone pulling another largemouth
    >bass of a lake.

That would never do.  Republicans love that kind of stuff.

Dan

    >As far as the anti-trust thing goes, it's always been my belief that
    >one of the cornerstones of the Republican party has been to increase
    >competition to maximize consumer benefit. 

    >I'm not sure which administration was behind the AT&T breakup.  The IBM
    >anti-trust started during the Nixon years I believe.  We need FACTS
    >here, not FACKS (tm).  You're startin' to sound like you-know-who!

The shackles were put on the Antitrust Division by the same administration
that gave us James Watt and Ed Meese.  That's very well documented.  It's
not even a matter of proving it: it's a cornerstone of the political theory.  They
wanted to "open up" business, reduce any government interference and
taxes and to deregulate industry.  This was supposed to  have the effect
of increasing conporate profits, which would spur GNP, increase wages and
voila! we have The Trickle-down Effect.

Needless to say, the trickle-down effect had its spout turned off somewhere just
below the white collar.

    >I believe it was *Congress* (i.e. Democrats) that made that ill-advised
    >decision. 

You can always tell a defensive Republican by the statement above.  The real
fault for the unseamly growth of the monopolistic powers of the cable
companies lies at the feet of the Reagan administration for the aforementioned
deregulation and also the local governments who awarded the contracts.
Many such governments have come to realize the mistake they made, but
for now, they are locked in.

In the foreseeable future, houses will be linked by fiber-optics provided by
Telephone.  I hope at that time, some new entrants will come into the market
and real competition will begin again.  Until then, it's likely that most people
reading this are at the mercy of their current company, or whomever buys
their current company.

Cable won't demise.  But it could be so much better.  The will to improve was
sapped and the consumer's voice is ignored.  It keeps profits higher.

    >All of this has precious little to do with the little CBS thing. 
    >Perhaps my concerns will be unfounded if, as you suggest, CBS
    >subcontracts some games to ESPN. 

You'd be surprised at the far reaching effects the monopolies create.
But I doubt that the games will be subcontracted as well.  But I do think
that it's a reasonable solution for the future, and CBS can afford to wait.
Maybe next year, maybe the year after.  There's more than a few bucks
there.

    >Some of the towns in Western Massachusetts are
    >now being offered a choice between cable companies.

But most towns everywhere are not.  And there are huge barriers to enter
the industry.  The monopolistic conditions are thriving.  Companies are
probably fearful of the coming of fiber-optics, and will begin asking for
longer contracts from the towns, if they haven't already.

To me, it's nice that you can get local productions on your cable system,
but its not the spice that I'm looking for.  I should have the choice of anything
I want, and if it weren't for the pressured legislation made by either the
cable companies and/or television stations, I would get that.  If I wanted
to see the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles, I should have it.  If I want 6 different
superstations, I should have it.  If I'm willing to pay a reasonable price for
these things, I should get them.  The technology is here and has been here
for years.  But the service is appreciably worse and significantly more
expensive and makes little use of available technology.

A satellite dish and descrambler seems like the current best solution.

Dan

    Big Mac,
    
    I sympathize with you over the rugby coverage.  Being a track and
    field fan, I hardly ever watch meets on TV, whether on national
    or cable networks.  They only show certain events, they cut in and
    out of races or events, ruining the feeling of competition.  One
    fo the best track meets I saw broadcast was on cable, and was an
    east block meet.  The coverage was good, and the commentators were
    knowledgeable.
    
    Of course, I don't understand why they broadcast marathons - total
    waste of time. 
    
    When tractor pulls get live coverage, and world championships get
    taped delay mishmash, sumthangs wrong.
    
    JD

    Good point, Dan, about localities having any options.  Haverhill,
    my home town, just recently signed a new contract with the local
    cable outfit.  The ONLY leverage they had was that the company was
    being bought out, and Haverhill was one of the key towns to be signed
    before the sale.  So, the local committee was able to get the new
    company to agree to certain actions, like keeping ESPN in Haverhill,
    and also cleaning up a transmission problem with one of the local
    channels.  Other than that, we've been forced to accept the one
    company.  No competition because of Federal law.  Once you have
    a company, you, the town, will go through Hell to get rid of them.
    The company would have to really screw-up in order for the locality
    to have any chance of calcelling them.
    
    It IS a monopoly, and the viewer get's screwed.  The town/city/whatever
    has just one chance to have the upper hand, and that is at the initial
    contract for cable.  Once the company is in, options are out the
    window, pretty much.
    
    Lee

>    
>    It IS a monopoly, and the viewer get's screwed.  The town/city/whatever
>    has just one chance to have the upper hand, and that is at the initial
>    contract for cable.  Once the company is in, options are out the
>    window, pretty much.
    
Lee, you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

A very good case in point is the situaion in central CT.  I live
in Hebron, and have United Cable.  The provide good service, are
always curteous and helpful, and  there is a wide range of programming
and premium options available.  It is rare that I can't find something 
to watch.

In the next town over, Glastonbury, cable is served by Cox Cable.
I hesitate to put in here exactly what most of the customers call the
company, but it has something to do with sipping...

My parents (unfortunately) have to subscribe to this sorry excuse for
a company.  They have had poor service, have had to wait as much as
24 hours for service that I typically get instantaneously after calling
in, and in general have a very scanty selection of channels and premium
options.  Also, channels offered are changed without notice quite often.

The only recourse is to send a letter, or voice displeasure with a 
phone call to the DPUC (___ Public Utilities Commission) here.  They
are supposed to oversee this.

Personally, while I tend to be a bit conservative in some of my leanings,
and don't pay a whole helluva lot of attention to politics since all
of them (conservatives and liberals alike) rank just below used car
salesmen and just above Adolf Hitler on my scale,  I feel that the
public is being jobbed....

That SAT dish is looking more and more like a real possibility....


Chainsaw

    I live in Shrewsbury, and am happy with the service, (I mean, I
    get Black Entertainment Televison (BET) - in *Shrewsbury* ?! There
    is a God ! :-) and I know that I'm lucky.
    
    We don not live in a true free-enterprise goverment, or the crap
    that has happened wouldn't. 
    
    The best way to insure long-term service is to increase the
    competition. Then we will *all* have quality service and programming
    for reasonable prices - or we'll find somebody else who will, right ?
    
    Frank, get your dish and descrmbler QUICK. We have one at my parents
    house in Houston, and it's great. But the Big Brothers in Congress
    are trying to undercut us all by making it illegal to have a dish
    and pull down signals.
    
    Originally, we used to get EVERYTHING. WITHOUT a descambler. Now,
    all of the premimum channels are scrambled, and even several baseball
    teams are starting to scamble their games. And today's descrmblers
    cost around $600 and up ... unless you bulid your own brand (but
    you didn't read this okay ?) ....
    
    DrM

Thanks for the tip, Doc...

I can't believe the d*** government is trying to make that illegal!

Good Lord, if you can't receive "radio waves" or whatever they're called,
it would be poor indeed.  I might just sit down and write my Congressman
(or woman actually) over this.  

We might just as well let the government run the damn TV stations...

Oh well, maybe I'm losing perspective here.  There are still many kazillion
books in the world, and my imagination is tons better than cable anyway!

Chainsaw(who likes to read too...)

>I can't believe the d*** government is trying to make that [descramblers]
>     illegal!
    
    They already are in most states.  It's not the government, it's the
    companies that beam out HBO, Cinemax, etc.  Before they scrambled their
    signals, they argued in court that satellite dishes for personal use
    ought to be illegal, but the courts said no, that people can pick
    things out of the public airwaves.  Then they scrambled signals and
    made a similar argument against descramblers.  This time the courts
    agreed with them.  I think only in a couple of states is it legal to
    buy and sell descramblers.
    
    Dan

       Hey Dan, did ya get one yet?
                                          Denny

    Well, you can still get around that Dan. It used to be that there
    was this descrambler call VideoCypher. Supposedly 'unbreakable'
    code. Ha. Somebody broke it. 
    
    Now they have VideoCypher II, which is a b***h to crack. In fact,
    the chip that is used to decode the signal is encased in epoxy so
    that any attempt to get to the chip will destroy it.
    
    Guess what ? Yep, somebody has gotten to that too. And it didn't
    require a lot of high-tech parts. I'm willing to bet that a lot
    of the people reading this note, have the electronic aptitude to
    pull it off too if you understand the principle of modern descrambling
    techniques.
    
    Anyhow, I see that it will take a major consumer revolt to turn
    the tide. Plain and simple.
    
    Dr Midnight
    
    p.s. Remember my spiritual cousin, Captain Midnight ? The one who
    broke in on a HBO telecast, and put a protest message (concening
    Congress' handling of cable vs. dish owners) on the air ?
    
    In my book, he's a hero.

    BTW, for anyone who is interested for more information on satellite
    receivers, et al there is a conference on the subject :
    
    DIEHRD::SWORD1$:[JAQUES_NOTES]SATELLITE
    
    DrM
    
    p.s. How do you set this up for KP7 entry ?

    
>    p.s. How do you set this up for KP7 entry ?
>

Notes>	SET NOTE/CONFER=DIEHRD::SWORD1$:[JAQUES_NOTES]SATELLITE

Dan --

I wasn't referring to descramblinb.  Perhaps I didn't read Doc's reply
well enough, but I interpreted it to mean that eventually dishes would
be illegal....

True, descrambling is illegal.  But I bet it would be pretty hard for
someone to prove you're doing it, save getting a search warrant, right?
(Or am I being Naive???)

'Saw

    I can't believe that satellite dishes will ever be legislated against,
    barring some certain defense-related reasons.
    
    Dan

>   I can't believe that satellite dishes will ever be legislated against,
>    barring some certain defense-related reasons.

Thanks, Dan, for clearing that up.

Actually, I would think that there could be a plethora of debate over
the scrambling of signals, especially in a constitutional sense.
But, I'm no expert...

'saw

    	Speaking of constitutional debates, I was reading over the weekend
    that there's a new FCC rule that gives local channels exclusive
    broadcast rights of syndicated shows.  Meaning that if a cable station
    from outside the area has a show that the local station has the
    cable operator has to black out the show on the cable station.  I
    think this is insanity.  And how long before it affects sporting
    events?  Exclusive broadcast rights could mean if the home team
    is on tonight, no other event in that sport can be broadcast.
    
    				/Don  

    You're talking about Syndex, /Don, and I'm already effected.  It's to
    protect local stations who buy the rights to syndicated events, so (for
    now) it has no connection to sports and exclusivity as you described. 
    Its application does concern the situation where WPIX broadcasts Cheers
    at any time and so does CH. 38.  WPIX's broadcast of Cheers must be
    blacked out to stay within the law.
    
    What I have learned about Syndex makes me ill.  On the surface, I can
    sympathize with the owner of CH 38 who complains that WPIX's broadcast
    means less viewers of his broadcast of Cheers, no matter that the two
    don't compete at the same time.  But that's not why Syndex came into
    being.  These Superstations (CH 38, WPIX, WWOR, WTBS, WTNT, WGN et al.)
    are trouble for cable companies for one solid reason -- each one costs
    the company money individually.  Everyone that is carried on a cable
    system costs the company additional bucks.  And there is demand for
    them, because each one carries sports as well as reasonably popular
    sydicated shows.  
    
    The thing is that there is no less demand for cable in general, even if
    they carry less superstations.  If a system outright drops one
    superstation, they probably don't lose one customer in 10,000.  So
    everything else being equal, they'd rather drop a few of these
    superstations, and save the money (and screw the customers, again).
    
    Now how can they get away with dropping the superstations?  First, they
    make a lot of noise about a "law" which says they can only carry 3
    superstations.  BUT it's not a law!!  They anticipate the law and drop
    the service and the law has never even been passed!  Who's behind the
    law? Local stations which broadcast syndicated stations, AND YOUR
    CABLE COMPANIES!
    
    That was a big deal about 2 to 3 years ago.  As a result, my local
    monompoly dropped WGN, and I was made to feel fortunate that they still
    carried TBS, WWOR, and WPIX.  Now with this Syndex deal, the same pair
    (it would never work with just the local stations, but Cable helps it
    to pass) it will just be more of the same.  There will be future
    rationalizations as to why should they carry a station that has a lot
    of blacked out programming?  They shouldn't, so they'll drop it, and
    save themselves some more $$$ and not lose any subscribers either.
    
    It's such a scam.
    
    Dan

Knock on wood, I haven't been affected yet ( I think).  At least
I haven't run into any blackouts.  My company carries Ch 38 (WGBH?)
and WPIX (ch 11).  It does not carry WOR.

At any rate, I haven't seen anything blacked out. Even a situation
between Ch 40 in Springfield and Channel 8 in New Haven wasn't blacked
out.  Both are ABC affiliates, and Ch 8 opted to show the UCONN - St JOhns
game.  I thought for sure that Ch 40 would be blacked out.

Perhaps these channels are in different market areas or something...

I remember reading that Ch 8 has a problem because it is carried
in New York, but that it can't black things out because its a Ct
market.

Just another stupid law, the administration of which I'm sure costs
me more money and yet provides no viable service to me...

Arggghhhh!

Chainsaw

    	Frank, check WPIX when Cheers is supposed to be on.   Either
    the cable operator is blacking the show out, or all the episodes
    are filmed in a blizzard.  At least it's that way in Leominister.
    Dan, I know the rule doesn't affect sports now, but it's setting
    a terrible precedent that the sporting world might use to stiff
    the fan.  What else would you watch if local teams were the only
    thing made available?
    
    				/Don

    	Good news sports fans.  SportsChannel lost $45,000.00 on Tuesday
    night's fiasco PPV of the Bruins/Dynamo exhibition game.  This is
    according to Jack Craig of the Globe.
    
    				/Don

>
>    	Good news sports fans.  SportsChannel lost $45,000.00 on Tuesday
>    night's fiasco PPV of the Bruins/Dynamo exhibition game.  This is
>    according to Jack Craig of the Globe.


	good and bad news...it's good 'cuz hopefully they wont have any more
stupid ppv things on, bad becuase they'll probably pass that loss on to the
customers somehow.

mc

Any word on avoiding the impasse between Cablevision and ESPN?

...we have only 9 days left if no compromise solution has been worked out.

Andy

    I saw an article in the paper about a week or so ago that said the FCC
    is prepared to open the doors for open competition in cable TV.  Any
    more word on that?
    
    I don't believe having/using a descrambler for your sattelite dish is
    illegal per se.  I'm pretty sure you can subscribe to services like HBO
    via the dish like you would for cable.  They would then "give" you an
    authorized descrambler.

    	Andy I read where it was settled and ESPN will remain as part
    of the basic service on Cablevision.
    
    				/Don

    It's not cable TV, but a topic I referred to earlier in this
    discussion.  While Boston is known as a great sports town, there's a
    lot of evidence to suggest that there's only support for the local pro
    teams, and relatively little interest for much else.  The TV stations
    recognize this through their ratings system and have effectively
    eliminated showing many sports which are carried nationally, such as
    college basketball on Saturday afternoons.  I forget which network it
    is, ABC I think, but the local affiliate nixed the entire schedule this
    year to shw Hawaii 5-0 reruns or something.  I read in a small blurb,
    shich people might have missed that ABC offered the schedule around and
    it has been picked up by Channel 27 in Worcester.  Bless 'em.  
    
    Even though it was probably just a business decision, I called them up
    and offered my praise.
    
    Dan

    NBC is going to supplement their 1992 Olympic coverage with a pay per
    view package.  Final details are not available, but it is reported that
    the entire pay per view package will cost viewers $150/household. 
    Coverage will not be interuppted by commercials.  NBC is counting on
    about 2 million sports fans to sign up.

Wow, maybe we should retitle this note "The Demise of TV"

Who would want to pay $150 to see uninterrupted Olympics?  Especially
for NBC coverage?

How many of you would pay that?   

Unbelievable....

�Who would want to pay $150 to see uninterrupted Olympics?  
    
    Anyone from the US who wanted to see the Olympics live would spend more
    than that in airfare alone.  Like I said, NBC is figuring that at least
    2 million people will sign up.

    
    IMO, the last Olympics telecast live was a crashing bore.  There
    were too many long delays during and between events, and since there
    were a number of events going on all at once, there were time conflicts
    that necessitated switching back and forth, and missing some of
    the action.  There was just enough time for you to get really involved
    in a volleyball game, for example, when they switched to something
    else.  It was kinda like sitting in a room watching television with
    someone, and that person controlled the clicker. (Dontcha just hate
    compulsive channel zappers, unless it is you doing the zapping?)
    
    What I like is maybe two hours of concise, well edited footage in
    the evening, where they show only the good stuff that the US of
    A did that day 8-))).  It has its moments, as I remember going totally
    crazy when we beat the Russians in hockey.  I just came home from
    work, turned it on and went totally crazy watching it.  When it
    was over, my wife turned to me and said "Oh, didn't you know they
    won already?  It was on the news just before you got home?"  Glad
    she didn't spoil it for me.
    
    -Dick
    

    To anyone who would sign up for $150 worth of uninterrupted
    skeet shooting, water polo, equestrian, and the ever-popular
    50k walk, 
    
    			GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    NAZZ

I guess I just feel that network should improve it's coverage before
it tries to milk us for all that we're worth.

I don't think they do that great a job, personally, and why should
I pay to see what I could get for free (well, for my basic cable fee)...

    Well, more changes in TV land.  In order to protect CBS and NBC, the
    NFL will be scrambling telecasts of games this season.  The only games
    available to the fans via the tube will be those televised in their
    local area.  No more trips to the Sports Bars to watch the home team
    while their game is blacked out.  Transplanted fans will no longer be
    able to watch the team they grew up with via sattelite or the local
    watering hole.

    � Transplanted fans will no longer be able to watch the team they grew
    � up with via sattelite or the local watering hole.
    
    Sound familiar ???
    
    Lived near Philly all my life, grew up going to Eagles games for more
    than 20 years, decide to make the biggest personal and career move of
    my life and relocate to Charlotte, fall in love with a Carolina house
    with a 12-foot dish, get all pumped up for the NFL season and ...
    
                           * * * P O O F * * *
    
    Rat bastards.   Yeah, I was really makin' some kind of huge profit off
    the NFL, wasn't I ...
    
    Bob Hunt

    Is profanity proper in here now?

    >Is profanity proper in here now?
    
    It depends.  Who defines profanity?
    
    As for you guys with dishes, it's already quite debatable if your
    entitled to down load the satellite signals into your house or bar.
    
    I know if I'd have sprung for the ol' dish (if I had a place to put
    one), I wouldn't think twice about dipping into the wallet for a little
    more cash and get something that descrambles those signals.
    
    There's no doubt as there's going to be a gouge down the road into the
    pockets of NFL fans.  This is only the first step.
    
    Dan

    According to the article I read, the only descramblers will have to be
    of the pirate variety since the NFL has no plans of offering a
    descrambler at this time.

    Excuse the profanity.  Mea culpa.  It happens whenever I have one of
    those "best laid plans of mice and men" blown to smithereens and back.
    
    I have no problems with trying to enforce copyrights and other property
    protection laws.  It is well within the NFL's rights to be concerned
    about the proliferation of "sports bars" that have built themselves an
    industry off of unscrambled NFL signals.  Whether the bars in question
    only charge a "cover" for admission into the bar or not, the fact
    remains that the games on the wide-screen TV are *the* attraction. 
    Their profits are a direct result of the use of the signals.  And the
    NFL is allowed to reserve the exclusive right to make a profit from
    those signals.
    
    And they should be allowed to scramble their signals to achieve that
    profit.  HBO, Showtime, ESPN, MTV, and many more ... they've all been
    down this road before.
    
    But to lock the signals up tight and not even consider a "descrambling"
    service is petty, selfish, and reeks of a "We'll show 'em who's the big
    boss" attitude.    They don't even have to offer a "commerical" service
    for the bars.  Obviously, I'd be content with just an "in-home" service
    similar to an HBO or Cinemax service.
    
    � I know if I'd have sprung for the ol' dish (if I had a place to put
    � one), I wouldn't think twice about dipping into the wallet for a little
    � more cash and get something that descrambles those signals.
    
    These days, Dan, a descrambler is a virtual given in any satellite
    system.   The system that came with my new house already had the
    industry standard VideoCypher II system (VCII for short).
    
    I'll make some predictions on this ...   
    
    Throughout the 1980s, the NFL flourished despite all kinds of problems
    including protracted legal hassles with Al Davis, competition with the
    USFL, labor disputes that pretty much ruined two separate seasons, drug
    abuse scandals, a bitter search for a new commissioner and many more.
    
    One of the reasons for the NFL's success is obviously the appeal of
    some of the teams.  And that appeal went beyond regional boundaries. 
    Of course, winning teams found it somewhat easier to stretch their
    appeal to broader markets but all teams to some degree have found
    pockets of support in all areas of the country.   Raiders jackets are
    found in every city.   Same with the 49ers, Dolphins, Giants, and
    Bears.  My good friend, Dan Medvid, has organized a 100-member strong
    Steeler fan club in Charlotte.   Remember "America's Team" ???   As
    much as the anti-Cowboy fans hate to admit it, the Dallas Cowboys had
    a strong *national* following.
    
    I submit that the over-the-air availability of NFL game signals had a
    lot to do with it.  And not just Monday Night Football.   I mean that a
    group of 100 or more Steelers fans could get together in a pizza and
    beer joint on a Sunday afternoon in Charlotte, North Carolina, and whip
    themselves into a terrible towel frenzy to their heart's delight.  And
    this scene was no doubt replayed in many different colors in many
    different cities.
    
    This broader appeal beyond a natural regional boundary will dry up and
    fade away with this grab by the NFL.  They will have slain one of their
    golden egg-laying geese.  Sales of NFL Properties merchandise will
    slump as local markets are saturated with the home team goods only. 
    Who'll buy a Seahawk hat in Houston ???   More importantly, who'd be
    dumb enough to sell a Steelers cap in Charlotte, a city with no team
    yet ???
    
    Fans should react to this move.  I've said it before that the best way
    to get the NFL's attention is to ignore them.  I submit that they've
    now given the fan yet another reason to ignore them.  Not exactly smart
    business.
    
    Besides, greed is an ugly thing.   They've already got an umpty-ump
    billion dollar tube contract in their pockets.  Why not just leave the
    stupid signals alone and swallow some of that greed and live happily
    ever after ...
    
    � There's no doubt as there's going to be a gouge down the road into
    � the pockets of NFL fans.  This is only the first step.
    
    Sorry, Dan, but I respectfully disagree.  This is about the 47th or
    48th step in an on-going, long-term process.
    
    Sad stuff ...
    
    Bob Hunt

    
        >Is profanity proper in here now?

    "Shoot-fudge-darn-pee-heck" is acceptable.
    
    Dickster
    

    Bob, have you considered sending a copy of 98.82 to the NFL ? 
    
    It'd make a hell of a petition letter ....
    
    Doc

    Val Pinchbeck, Jr
    Vice President of Broadcasting
    The National Football League
    410 Park Ave
    New York, NY (sorry, don't know the zip)
    
    is the person to whom you should address your letter.  Never met the
    man, don't know what he's like.  Joe Browne, Vice President of
    Communications and Jim Heffernan, Vice President of Public Relations,
    are other good ones.  Pete Abitante is Director of Information for the
    AFC, and other people who should be included on the list are Greg
    Aiello and Dick Maxwell.
    
    Good luck,
    
    John

    I think it has been written before in here, but just to refresh your
    memories, Joe Robbie is the one who started all this scrambling stuff. 
    He noticed all the sports bars making $$$ off the NFL in Miami and he
    thought scrambling the signal would bring these people to his stadium. 
    It didn't.  And even when the Dolphins were out of town, the signal was
    scrambled.  
    
    I hope that SOB had a few rough moments before he kicked, 'cause he's
    giving them to me now.  As Bob Hunt mentioned, the Steelers fans have
    been tremendously successful in organizing here in Charlotte.  To let
    them down now would really hurt me, even though I have no control over
    it.
    
    I don't think writing to the NFL is going to do you one bit of good. 
    Their minds are made up.  It might do you better to contact your
    senators.  There is some reasoning (and I really don't understand it)
    that signal scrambling would be a violation of anti-trust laws.
    
    	--dan'l

    Yes, that is true Dan, and I wish that ole Captain Midnight (the guy
    who broke in on HBO's signal to protest scrambling) would do the same
    thing agian to te NFL ...
    
    It's simple greed - and they have the nerve to call the players greedy.

    � It might do you better to contact your senators.  
    
    Yeah, we'll contact ol' Jesse Helms and we'll tell him that a bunch of
    communist, liberal, gay, black artists are behind this.   He'll be sure
    to take action then.
    
    � There is some reasoning (and I really don't understand it) that
    � signal scrambling would be a violation of anti-trust laws.
    
    As I understand it, the NFL enjoys a congressionally-approved exemption
    from antitrust laws.  (Major league baseball does, too.)  What the NFL
    has to be concerned about is whether this scrambling decision
    jeopardizes their *very* valuable exemption.   Apparently, this is one
    of the reasons why they caved in on the drafting eligibility of college
    juniors recently.
    
    Obviously, they don't think the scrambling issue will hurt their
    exemption.   And just as obviously, I hope it does.
    
    Bob Hunt

   I move we petition Chainsaw to start a petition to the NFL and various
   congresscritters, and get this thing straightened out!

   Unlike the affair of the redoubtable but suspect mooch... this IS of
   world shaking importance! (At least to those of us with good
   attitudes).

   LET QUARTERBACKS SCRAMBLE... N O T   C A B L E  S I G N A L S !!!!

   Mike JN

    
    
    	Bob, have you aired your concerns in the Dish conference?  There's
    some pretty good stuff in there (I don't read it anymore) about
    all kinds of dish issues.  They might know more than what is being
    published in the papers about the scrambling issue.
    
    	I would agree with you that this whole thing has the potential
    to let the NFL shoot itself in the foot.  Although I do see in the
    near future, when sports becomes cable-ized that it will simply
    be pay-per-view.  A fan will have a menu of games with the ability
    to select which game he wants to see..complete with commercialization
    and all for the low cost of 2-5 bucks per game.  It is apparent
    that the free-ride for over-the-air sports is coming to an end.
    In comes Select-a-Game!
    
    	As for writing, maybe it would help (can't hurt) if those who
    belong to clubs and such to write their favorite NFL team and complain
    to them.  Not that it will do a great deal, but I'm sure at some
    point, the Steeler's front office (as an example) might consider
    the issue if they knew that their fans were being denied a chance
    to see them play.  If it were me and my club or group, I'd write
    the team and tell them what I thought, and then ask them for a reply
    as to how will I be able to see "my" team play?  If I can't see
    my team play, what's the sense in having a fan club?
    
    							bill..g.
    

    Yes, I'm pretty much an off-hours, read-only noter in PEARL::SATELLITE.
    
    A lot of those guys in that conference are deep into the satellite
    hardware, software and stuff.  When 2 of the 3 "adult" services were
    forced off the air earlier this year, there was somewhat of a lively
    debate on the issue but this NFL thing hasn't gotten too many of 'em
    all bothered up.   Yet.
    
    Interestingly, Hal Whitehair of Cleveland fame is also a dish owner and
    there may be some more in this conference but I forget.
    
    As for writing to the NFL, I gotta make the time.
    
    Bob Hunt

    Tagliabue stated that this move is completely unrelated to
    pay-per-view.  Pay-per-view is not even being considered at this time. 
    Tagliabue said that he is doing this for the sponsors (hey, what about
    the fans?  You know, the people that really pay the bills!).   CBS will
    begin scrambling the first weekend.  NBC will follow suit about
    mid-season.  Rumor is that CBS requested it.  Tagliabue says that it
    was a mutual agreement.  The networks claim that with sattelite dish
    pickups, they can't accurately determine viewership.  Without accurate
    viewer numbers, they can't charge appropriately for commercial time.
    
    Several bars have been successfully sued by the NFL for broadcasting
    games that weren't offered in the local area.

    � Tagliabue stated that this move is completely unrelated to
    � pay-per-view.  Pay-per-view is not even being considered at this time. 
         
    Yeah, uh-huh.  Anybody believe him ???   If he starts to talk about a
    bridge for sale in Brooklyn, we're in deep yogurt.
    
    � Tagliabue said that he is doing this for the sponsors (hey, what
    � about the fans?  
    
    Thanks, Paul, you are quite the ambassador, aren't you ???
    
    � Rumor is that CBS requested it.  Tagliabue says that it was a mutual
    � agreement.  
    
    Another dubious claim.  Who cares who requested it and an "agreement"
    is *not* an "agreement" until it's mutual.  Typical lawyer doublespeak.
    
    � The networks claim that with sattelite dish pickups, they can't
    � accurately determine viewership.  Without accurate viewer numbers, they
    � can't charge appropriately for commercial time.
    
    Like they really know accurate viewer numbers with free "over-the-air"
    broadcasts, right ???  Hell, all they know is that Chicago saw the
    Bears game, fer cripes sake.   The Nielsen and Arbitron numbers are
    statistically validated *estimates*.  Period.
    
    You want accurate satellite viewership data ???   Fine, here.   My name
    is Bob Hunt and I own a dish.  I live in Rock Hill, South Carolina.  
    Count me as a viewer, please.
    
    This is stinky, smelly crap of the worst kind.   Yes, with
    *unscrambled* feeds, they can not determine their satellite audience.  
    Just like they can't determine free broadcast viewers, either.
    
    With a *scrambled* feed, you can.   Each piece of descrambling hardware
    has a unique address, just like Ethernet boards.  The dish I bought
    with my house came with a standard VideoCypher II descrambler.  It has
    a unique multi-digit, alphanumeric code number like all other VCIIs and
    like no other VCII, right ???
    
    In order to subscribe to HBO, for example, you place a phone call to
    them (or to a service bureau) and you order HBO by giving them your
    name, credit card number and expiration date, and your descrambler unit
    number.   One hour later, after a $5.00/hour clerk types in your data
    into some master computer, you get HBO.   Magic.   Your code number is
    one of the millions of authorized numbers and you see and hear HBO.
    
    And if they wanted to go PPV (pay-per-view), fine.  There's another
    little box you can buy called a VideoPal.  You attach it to your
    system, you point the dish to a bird showing PPV stuff and you key in a
    password into this VideoPal gizmo.   Sit back and watch the movie.  
    Once a month, a command signal comes into your system from the bird and
    your month's "history" is uploaded.  A few days later, your bill for
    the month comes in the mail.
    
    I don't own a VideoPal.  But I might if the NFL were on PPV.
    
    { As an aside, I'm not too terribly crazy about this VideoPal "upload"
    stuff.  Seems a little too intrusive and "Big Brother"ish to me.  And
    what if they screw up your bill.  Your data is flushed and you're at
    their mercy. }
    
    Anyway, the point is they could have *PINPOINT* accurate numbers on
    satellite viewers if they wanted them.   So, that argument stinks.
    
    This is just a mean-spirited, cold-hearted grab by both the networks
    and the NFL to stick it to some of their customers.   Again, I do *NOT*
    have a problem with the scrambling decision.  It's in their rights.  I
    bitterly oppose their decision not to offer industry-standard
    descrambling services.
    
    Makes you wonder what their "Customer Satisfaction" guidebooks say.
    
    Phooey ...
    
    Bob Hunt

    
    I can believe that the scrambling was CBSs idea. They have scrambled
    everthing else and this is just a logical extention. I've got a dish
    and, to me, this is just an extention to what MLB did to us a year ago.
    Every baseball game backhaul has been scrambled for about a year and a
    half. They're still not offering any of this to the STV owner. 
    
    Ohh well, at least basketball and hockey haven't started scrambling
    yet.
    
    Dennis
    

    	VideoPal.  HaHa!  I just love these kinder gentler terms.  That's
    like calling the neighborhood mugger a rescouce re-distributer.
    
    				/Don

    
    I'd like to ask the NFL the following..  
    
    Q.  Who buys seemingly 90% of NFL game advertising?
    A.  Beverage companies (read BEER)
    
    Q.  Where are these outlawed club meetings held?
    A.  Bars.
    
    Q.  What do people do at bars?
    A.  Drink beverages (read again BEER).  
    
    Q.  Will displaced fans watch local telecasts (uggh, Patriots for we
    	New Englanders)?
    A.  NO WAY
    
    Q.  Will displaced fans go to bars to drink and watch local telecasts?
    A.  NO WAY
    
    Q.  Will the advertisers lose possible revenue thanks to the NFL
    	cracking down on "illegal" reception of NFL telecasts?  
    A.  Most likely, yes.
    
    
    

    The only thing missing from your argument is that currently the
    full-blown commercials are *NOT* shown on the satellite feeds.  About
    all a dish viewer ever sees is those quick flash ads that go "This
    broadcast is brought to you by <insert logo over shot of end zone> and
    by <next logo superimposed over fans in the stands> and so on ..." 
    
    So, during commercial time, all those Steelers fans in the Charlotte
    pizza and beer joint, to use this again as an example, are watching the
    announcers comb their hair, straighten their ties, or talk about where
    they'll go to have dinner that night.   They don't see or hear "When
    You Say Bud" ...
    
    Basically, commericals during football games try to sell beer, cars and
    trucks, insurance, gasoline, sneakers, deodorant, soda pop, and maybe
    an airline or a computer or two.   Definitely no Massengill ads during
    a football game.
    
    I can understand the NFL, the networks, and the ad sponsors showing
    serious concerns over this "gap" in commercial coverage.  If I were
    paying for the ad, I'd want it shown everywhere, too.
    
    So, put the damn ads in the satellite feed and then beam it up.   Fine. 
    I've been watching football "in the clear" for more than 20 years. 
    I've seen every ad they've ever come up with.   I'll just hit the
    icebox or the bathroom like I usually do.  I don't need to hear Terry
    Bradshaw ask Vern Lundquist if they want ribs or chicken that night. 
    It's kinda neat to be in on something the rest of the viewers don't see
    or hear but I don't *have* to have it.
    
    Scramble the signals, put the ads in there, and then sell the damn
    descrambling service.   Just like ESPN does right this very minute.
    
    Bob Hunt

    
    The NFL has announced that they will not be scrambling for at least two
    weeks because of a lack of equipment. Now that I think of it, it may
    just have been CBS.
    
    In a related story, Anheiser Busch has said that that are totally
    against the scrambling of football games, but that they have no control
    over what the networks do. Apparently, the letter writing campaign has
    gotten to them.
    
    AS far as watching the games on Satellite, there's two ways to watch a
    football game. One is via the backhaul, which has no commercials and
    you get to here how terry bradshaw is picking his nose. The other is
    watch the distribution feed, which is what the network feeds to the
    affiliates. THAT feed has all of the commercials and all the other good
    stuff. CBS has been working toward scrambling that feed for several
    years and I don't think thge NFL will sway that one way or the other.
    
    One thing I would be interested in is writing to the top 10 advertisers
    for NFL broadcasts to let them know that I will no longer buy their
    products if I am shut out from NFL telecasts by short sighted
    broadcasters. If enough of us do it, and copy the networks and the NFL,
    maybe a change will be forthcoming. John H., do you know if such a list
    exists?
    
    Dennis

    I don't know if such a list exists but writing to the league hierarchy
    may get you one.
    
    I had some incorrect titles for some of the people I recommended
    writing to earlier.  Joe Browne is VP of Communications and
    Development.  Val Pinchbeck, Jr is VP of Broadcasting and Productions. 
    Pete Abitante is AFC Director of Information, Greg Aiello is Director
    of Communications, Nancy Behar is Assistant Director of Broadcasting
    and Productions, Jim Heffernan is Director of Public Relations and Dick
    Maxwell is Director of Broadcasting Services.  The position of NFC
    Director of Information is open.
    
    John

Mac, sorry to inform you but it is the sponsors and not the fans who pay the
the bills in the NFL. With the exception of probably the 49 ers thanks to TV
money every team in the NFL makes money without even putting a fanny in any
seat. Sure I supposed because we buy the products in the long run it does
trickle back to us but it's the sponsors who buy the commercial time that
pay the bills...

on a sad note and oh so typical of the organization the Pats who have finally
decided to honor John Hannah have done a double take. I'm not sure, although
I'm sure JH is that they chose a particular home game this year to honor the
Hog at. Seeing how this was a great idea and the only game so far this year
that they have been able to sell more than 5K tickets after season tickets
they decided to change the date to another game to obviously boost ticket
sales for that game. Well Hannah bought 300 tickets for the first affair
and now they refuse to buy the 300 tickets back. If I was him I'd tell them
to stuff it and if I was a fan who bought a ticket to the first affair I'd
organize a bonfire party in the parking lot....

mike

       According to the Globe over the weekend,the networks will NOT be
    scrambling anytime in the near future. They refuse to pay for the
    required equipment. They say if the NFL wants it's games scrambled,
    they'll have to come up with the dough for the electronicsw.
                            Denny

       Didn't someone say that the reason the date was changed was that
    Hannah's agent wanted more time to publicize the event?
                                 Denny

    	...and I thought the Pats let Hannah exchange the tickets. 
    I read the same article Denny about scrambling, and I can't see the
    NFL dishing out the bucks for the equipment until they determine
    if PPV of games will make them a profit.
    
    				/Don

- the last two

 You'se guys is season ticket what do you know? :^) S&M maybe....

 just kidding naturally alls I know is what I heard this morning from the
 less than reputable Tank. Could be that they did indeed allow him to traDE
 tickets and his agent may have been the one. Just seemed with their history
 that the other story seemed plausible. I mean Tank wouldn't be trying to
 sensaionalize and create controversy now would he? 

 ;^)

    Although the John Hannah discussion doesn't belong here, I will say
    that I read it was his agent who requested the team make the switch. 
    The team complied.  John was taken by surprise however - apparently his
    agent didn't tell him first.  He did ask if he could exchange the
    tickets he'd purchased, but I hadn't yet heard whether or not the team
    had allowed him to do so.
    
    Typical Tank - stirring up things that don't need to be stirred up by
    not getting his facts straight.
    
    John

    Pardon me, but what the hail does a *RETIRED* offensive lineman need a
    stupid agent for in the first place ???
    
    Is he, like, negotiating with furniture outlets for better deals on
    rocking chairs ???
    
    Bob Hunt

    Beats the hell out of me, but I'm not going to complain to him.  The
    paper said it was his agent, maybe it was his lawyer.
    
    John

    In USA Today today, the sports TV person said that the NFLs scrambling
    plans are on indefinite hold. Apparently the networks didn't want to
    pay the freight to offer the NFL the encryption that it wanted. Also,
    several bars told A-B that they wouldn't buy their beer anymore and A-B
    told CBS and NBC that scrambling was unacceptable for the amount of
    bucks they pay for ads.
    
    So far, chalk one up for the little guy.
    
    Dennis
    

    Well, how do you like that ...
    
    This is perhaps the first time I've actually been happy that a beer
    company did something completely self-serving.   Anheuser-Busch doesn't
    care squat about the "little guy".  They just don't want to see the
    death of this *huge* cash cow that sports bars have turned into.
    
    And so far as I'm concerned, hot damn ...
    
    Bob Hunt

    Makes you almost able to tollerate the "When You Say Bud" jingle in St.
    Louis now, don't it, Bob?
    
    	--dan'l

    A catchy tune with a spiffy little beat, ain't it, Daniel ???
    
    This is somewhat of an "inside joke" here so I'll share it.   
    
    My current assignment calls for some trips to St. Louis to work with an
    independent development group.   While there, I've gone to some Blues
    hockey games and some Cardinals baseball games.  As you may know,
    Anheuser-Busch practically owns St. Louis.   And at both the St. Louis
    Arena and at Busch Stadium, they play that "Bud" jingle over and over
    and over and over and ...
    
    What's really funny about it is the way the St. Louis crowds react to
    it.   The action can be kind of slow, maybe not much happening.  But as
    soon as the first coupla notes of that bouncy "When You Say Bud" jingle
    are heard over the PA system, they immediately perk right up and start
    clapping rythmically.  As soon as the jingle is over, their hands go
    right back into their laps.   Five minutes later, repeat same scene.  
    All night long.
    
    It's really a riot if you pay attention to it.   One time at a Blues
    game, the organist started with those first few tense and suspenseful
    deep bass notes of the "Jaws" theme.   No reaction.   Then he neatly
    slipped right into the "Bud" jingle and they started clapping.   I was
    rolling.   
    
    Bob Hunt

Yeah, Bob....that's the way it starts.

Next thing you know they get them to take out their wallets and hand
over mass quantities of money.  With that accomplished, they'll condition
the fans to overthrow the government, and turn this great land of
ours into sheer anarchy!

I say we have to stop this and stop this NOW.  Get Tipper Gore and
Jesse Helms to look into this organist thing.  Perhaps we can
label the tickets to the games --  "Warning:  Attending this Game
May Condition Your Mind!"

Then, after that we should send in the National Guard....

This must be stopped!

>I say we have to stop this and stop this NOW.  Get Tipper Gore and
>Jesse Helms to look into this organist thing.  Perhaps we can
>label the tickets to the games --  "Warning:  Attending this Game
>May Condition Your Mind!"
    
    On a totally unrelated note (sort of), classic line by Aerosmith last
    night at the MTV video awards.  They thanked Tipper and Jesse for
    insisting on those warning labels.  Said it helped them sell thousands
    more copies.
    
    Saw highlights this morning.  Two Live Crew made a surpise appearance. 
    The whole award ceremony dealt with ceonsorship.  Madonna out-classed
    everyone.  But Sin�ad O'Connor was truely the literate spokesperson by
    saying her flap over the national anthem is not against the song or
    Americans, but a protest of the censorship thing.  How do you like it,
    America, when the tables are turned on your own song?  Not so nice, is
    it?
    
    Thank God for artists.  They keep this world honest.
    
    	--dan'l

Was it me, or does anyone else out there think that Sinead looked
a little bit like Gandhi last night? ;^)

That white dress with those Army boots really turned me on too....

Arsenio's glasses just didn't make it.....

later,
'Saw

    Too funny 'Saw.......

    Let's move this over to the Kelly Bundy note since that's where the
    discussion has picked up.
    
    	--dan'l