Game 5 Not to be Shown on Nat. TV!?!?
- Thread starter T[MaC]
- Start date
![T[MaC]](/data/avatars/m/1/1105.jpg?1377970461){kind=avatar}
Well TNT may not be to happy about this, they are essentially getting screwed by the NBA's bunk seeding formula. I belive TNT has the rights to all play off games during the week. The probablem has been the ocasional first round overlap that usualy only occures when teams go to games 4,5 & 6. The historical solution was to scedual potental conflicts with one game being a "bad match" 1-8 seeding assuming that even if the series goes that far most non-team fans will not care.
I'd suggest peopel write to TNT on this, thay have the rigts to the game and if those rights are deemd valuable they will do something with them. For example show a tape of the game after the LA game, possibly sell those rights to espn or transfer them to another turner network like TNN.
I'd suggest peopel write to TNT on this, thay have the rigts to the game and if those rights are deemd valuable they will do something with them. For example show a tape of the game after the LA game, possibly sell those rights to espn or transfer them to another turner network like TNN.
Why is it not the criteria, then, I suppose is my question. Don't you have the opportunity to subscribe to NBA TV?
EDIT - And, not all games are nationally broadcast; despite League Pass/NBA TV's promise of "up to forty games a week," some games still get lost in the shuffle... as many as 5 games a season just don't get shown at all; remember the Kings/Wizards game? That game wasn't even on local television *here*, and this is DC's market.
EDIT - And, not all games are nationally broadcast; despite League Pass/NBA TV's promise of "up to forty games a week," some games still get lost in the shuffle... as many as 5 games a season just don't get shown at all; remember the Kings/Wizards game? That game wasn't even on local television *here*, and this is DC's market.
Last edited:
OK, I did a little reasearch and found this contact info for TNT. Even better is a phone number for Turner Broadcasting:
tnt@turner.com
404-827-1700
I sent the following email and will call the Network tommorow. I suggest anyone else who is not happy about the oversight do the same.
Dear TNT Programming,
I am writing to voice my concern and displeasure over your programming decisions for Tuesday 5/2/06. It is my understanding that you retain the rights to all NBA play off games played on week days. Yet on Tuesday the second you are NOT broadcasting the Sacramento Kings, San Antonio Spurs game. As you may well know this series is heating up and becoming more intense each game (Sunday’s buzzer beater was the NBA play of the day).
I wish you would consider either broadcasting a delayed broadcast of the game (It has to get better ratings than inside the NBA or repeats or Law and Order), or showing the game on another Turner network. If neither of these suggestions are practical why not sell the rights to this game to ESPN or other interested party.
Sincerely
Name
Adress
Phone
tnt@turner.com
404-827-1700
I sent the following email and will call the Network tommorow. I suggest anyone else who is not happy about the oversight do the same.
Dear TNT Programming,
I am writing to voice my concern and displeasure over your programming decisions for Tuesday 5/2/06. It is my understanding that you retain the rights to all NBA play off games played on week days. Yet on Tuesday the second you are NOT broadcasting the Sacramento Kings, San Antonio Spurs game. As you may well know this series is heating up and becoming more intense each game (Sunday’s buzzer beater was the NBA play of the day).
I wish you would consider either broadcasting a delayed broadcast of the game (It has to get better ratings than inside the NBA or repeats or Law and Order), or showing the game on another Turner network. If neither of these suggestions are practical why not sell the rights to this game to ESPN or other interested party.
Sincerely
Name
Adress
Phone
Well it goes to the defination of broadcast. I suppose in the strictest sense of the word yes it is nationaly boradcast. In a more narrow sense it is only available to those who subscribe. The term broadcast originats in farming and implyes to sow widely and indiscriminatly. I would say that this is more of a NAROW CAST.
In my particular case Comcast makes it fairly expensive as I would have to up grade my cable package or buy a converter then pay the NBA. In the course of the regualr season there are only aobut 4 or 5 games I miss and up untill now every season I have been able to see every play off game.
In my particular case Comcast makes it fairly expensive as I would have to up grade my cable package or buy a converter then pay the NBA. In the course of the regualr season there are only aobut 4 or 5 games I miss and up untill now every season I have been able to see every play off game.
ESPN and TNT are only available to those who subscribe. It all boils down to two questions: 1) is it *actually* available in your market, and 2) are you willing to pay for it?
If the answer to the first question is no, then you have a valid complaint. If the answer is yes, then you really don't, even if it means that you had to switch services or upgrade or whatever. If it's available, then you could get it if you wanted to.
If the answer to the first question is no, then you have a valid complaint. If the answer is yes, then you really don't, even if it means that you had to switch services or upgrade or whatever. If it's available, then you could get it if you wanted to.
Here in Big Sky Country we cannot subscribe to NBA TV. I tried to subscribe earlier in the year as they were advertising it on our digital cable channels but I was informed it is not available in our area.
So I am one of those fans who has no chance to watch the game even if I was willing to pay for it. I am sure ours is not the only market where you cannot purchase NBA TV, so other Kings/Spurs fans are getting screwed too.
Last edited:
The problem again is the overly broad definition of "broadcast" There two clear and distinct definitions at work. One is the verb to broadcast the other is the adjective broadcast TV.
In the case of broadcast v. to disseminate... no one is arguing with you that the game IS available to virtually anyone willing and able to pay what ever it takes to get the game. The game WILL be broadcast, and that broad cast will be available virtually nationwide.
In the case of broadcast adj. a type to be made public, as applied to TV in this case the problem is with the idea of it being made public. By applying only the verb definition we then have to define XM satellite, Serius Satellite, the Playboy channel and even a Tibetan cooking show bounced off a satellite as nationally broadcast... you just have to pay the fees for the permission and equipment to pick them up.
In reality there is a NARROWING down here of numbers that constitute "the public" First we used to say that there was a distinction between broadcast TV and cable, and while some may well hold that the distinction continues, most people in the field now see basic cable as broadcast TV since such a large number of Americans have basic cable. Also the FCC regulates content on basic cable because THEY see it as broadcast. But once a special subscription beyond that is incurred everything changes. FCC can no longer control content (see Howard Stern and Playboy Chanel) because they no longer consider it broadcast TV (note use of adjective form here).
In a pure numerical sense the numbers there are more than 110 million households with TV's in the US and less than 13% of them do NOT have cable or Dish. ( http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/bth/20050515/Cea-congress-tv-20050515/index.html)
I was unable to find the number of subscribers to NBA TV (wonder why they keep that number so secret?) but suffice it to say I would be shocked is more than one or two percent of American households with dish subscribe to it so we are talking about what 2 million max most likely just over one million. My point is that a signal that fewer than one percent of all American households CAN watch is not exactly making something public.
In the case of broadcast v. to disseminate... no one is arguing with you that the game IS available to virtually anyone willing and able to pay what ever it takes to get the game. The game WILL be broadcast, and that broad cast will be available virtually nationwide.
In the case of broadcast adj. a type to be made public, as applied to TV in this case the problem is with the idea of it being made public. By applying only the verb definition we then have to define XM satellite, Serius Satellite, the Playboy channel and even a Tibetan cooking show bounced off a satellite as nationally broadcast... you just have to pay the fees for the permission and equipment to pick them up.
In reality there is a NARROWING down here of numbers that constitute "the public" First we used to say that there was a distinction between broadcast TV and cable, and while some may well hold that the distinction continues, most people in the field now see basic cable as broadcast TV since such a large number of Americans have basic cable. Also the FCC regulates content on basic cable because THEY see it as broadcast. But once a special subscription beyond that is incurred everything changes. FCC can no longer control content (see Howard Stern and Playboy Chanel) because they no longer consider it broadcast TV (note use of adjective form here).
In a pure numerical sense the numbers there are more than 110 million households with TV's in the US and less than 13% of them do NOT have cable or Dish. ( http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/bth/20050515/Cea-congress-tv-20050515/index.html)
I was unable to find the number of subscribers to NBA TV (wonder why they keep that number so secret?) but suffice it to say I would be shocked is more than one or two percent of American households with dish subscribe to it so we are talking about what 2 million max most likely just over one million. My point is that a signal that fewer than one percent of all American households CAN watch is not exactly making something public.
Last edited:
I used to have NBATV when I lived in IL and had satellite. Now that I am back to cable, I cannot receive the channel unless I upgrade and get a box for descrambling channels (digital cable). I would have to pay an increased monthly cable rate, and then a rental on the box and remote. That is not worth it for 1 - 2 games of basketball. I already pay almost $100 per month as it is for expanded basic cable and broadband internet access.
It's not overly broad, because you're overlooking something that a lot of people, with the latest advancements in televsion technologies, take for granted nowadays: "Basic" cable is not free.
But I still think that you're splitting hairs. As hard as it was for me to believe, until becoming re-acquainted with some of my more rural relatives, everyone in the United States does not have cable television. If you want to get right down to it, the only channels that are "truly" broadcast are those that you can pick up with nothing but a plain-old TV and an antenna. If I pull down the old 13-inch Black and White w/antenna job that I had in college back in the early nineties from my attic, and just plug it into the wall, I'll get network televsion (ABC, NBC, CBS, UPN, WB) and local affiliates/public access. That's broadcast.
And, technically, it *is* all broadcast. It's just a question of whether it's encrypted or unencrypted. My point is that, although many of us have come to take it for granted, "basic" cable is *still* encrypted. Nearly all televisions available today are designed to be able to decrypt these signals without the need for a cable box, but it's still encrypted, and you still have to pay for it. "Basic" cable is not free, and trying to represent it as such, while claiming that you have to pay for services like NBA TV, is misleading.
The FCC doesn't really have any jurisdiction over cable television, either: Ad dollars have MUCH more influence, and ad dollars are highly influenced by the "moral majority." Nearly all cable companies end up following FCC guidelines, not out of obligation, but out of fear of losing ad revenue. There is, theoretically speaking, nothing whatsoever preventing USA network from showing the same content as Cinemax or the Spice channel.
But I still think that you're splitting hairs. As hard as it was for me to believe, until becoming re-acquainted with some of my more rural relatives, everyone in the United States does not have cable television. If you want to get right down to it, the only channels that are "truly" broadcast are those that you can pick up with nothing but a plain-old TV and an antenna. If I pull down the old 13-inch Black and White w/antenna job that I had in college back in the early nineties from my attic, and just plug it into the wall, I'll get network televsion (ABC, NBC, CBS, UPN, WB) and local affiliates/public access. That's broadcast.
And, technically, it *is* all broadcast. It's just a question of whether it's encrypted or unencrypted. My point is that, although many of us have come to take it for granted, "basic" cable is *still* encrypted. Nearly all televisions available today are designed to be able to decrypt these signals without the need for a cable box, but it's still encrypted, and you still have to pay for it. "Basic" cable is not free, and trying to represent it as such, while claiming that you have to pay for services like NBA TV, is misleading.
The FCC doesn't really have any jurisdiction over cable television, either: Ad dollars have MUCH more influence, and ad dollars are highly influenced by the "moral majority." Nearly all cable companies end up following FCC guidelines, not out of obligation, but out of fear of losing ad revenue. There is, theoretically speaking, nothing whatsoever preventing USA network from showing the same content as Cinemax or the Spice channel.