Anyone seen the shot Time Warner took at NFL Network?

[lzppjb]

This is a picture taken of the screen on channel 449.

 

[BigDFan5]

Time warners only offer is "give us what we want and let us screw NFL fans"


BTW that doesnt look real

 

[khiladi]

Time Warner is losing, not the NFL...

 

[lzppjb]

It's real. The guy who posted it isn't usually one to post BS. And at least 2 others saw it on their Time Warner as well.

And I can see it both ways. I don't see why Time Warner should be forced to make NFL Network a base channel. Then everyone has to pay for it whether they want it or not. I think the NFL should take a one year deal to get it part of the Sports Pak and then negotiate from there. If a ton of people sign up for it like they think will happen, they can get TWC to put it in the base package.

 

[CowboyMike]

It's real. The guy who posted it isn't usually one to post BS. And at least 2 others saw it on their Time Warner as well.

And I can see it both ways. I don't see why Time Warner should be forced to make NFL Network a base channel. Then everyone has to pay for it whether they want it or not. I think the NFL should take a one year deal to get it part of the Sports Pak and then negotiate from there. If a ton of people sign up for it like they think will happen, they can get TWC to put it in the base package.

If that was the case, then why have Time Warner when DirecTV and Dish offer NFL Network as a BASE channel?

NFL Network wants to be treated the same as ESPN, and I don't blame them. They have more quality and unbiased programming than ESPN hands down.

BTW, I have DirecTV, and I'm still paying less than I would if I had Time Warner.

 

[Mavs Man]

Not sure how they're seeing that - there is no channel listed at all for 449 on my Time Warner box.

 

[DasTex]

I have it too. I'm guessing it's only in TW larger markets that won't get the local feed

 

[BigDFan5]

It's real. The guy who posted it isn't usually one to post BS. And at least 2 others saw it on their Time Warner as well.

And I can see it both ways. I don't see why Time Warner should be forced to make NFL Network a base channel. Then everyone has to pay for it whether they want it or not. I think the NFL should take a one year deal to get it part of the Sports Pak and then negotiate from there. If a ton of people sign up for it like they think will happen, they can get TWC to put it in the base package.

Once the NFL allows it on a higher tier its there for good, TW would not give up revenue a year later and make it a part of the base package.

The satellite companies made it a base channel, the cable companies can too, the would just rather milk their customers out of 5-10 dollars a month and make them get a bunch of crappy sports networks they dont want just to get NFL Net.

Make no mistake about it the Cable companies know the NFL Network would sell, thats why they want it on a higher package it means more money for them.


Why do I have 6 shopping channels?


Why do I have Versus, Speed and Golf channel all on basic cable? because those channels are owned by the cable company

Why will the MLB channel be on basic cable next year? Because MLB sold a % of the channel to the cable company



I get all kinds of garbage but can not get the channel I want?



If the cable companies were serious why dont they ask NFL to allow them to offer the NFL Network A la Carte? Charge 70 cents per person who wants the channel/ They wont offer that though because that doesnt help their revenue as much as 5-10 a month

 

[dallasfaniac]

If that was the case, then why have Time Warner when DirecTV and Dish offer NFL Network as a BASE channel?

For most of the country this is the best option, but for many with apartments that do not allow satellites or those in New York where tall building block signals, this is not an option. This was the stickler years ago with the Yankees and Yes Network.

NFL Network wants to be treated the same as ESPN, and I don't blame them. They have more quality and unbiased programming than ESPN hands down.

And ESPN charges cable companies $3.00 per subscriber per month, whereas NFL Network wants 90 cents. ESPN costs more than NHL Network, NFL Network and the planned Major League Baseball Network would combined.

BTW, I have DirecTV, and I'm still paying less than I would if I had Time Warner.

I don't know about Time Warner, but I know DirectTV is less than I used to pay for Cox Cable, whom I had to constantly email to remind them about Nationally Televised games and was going to put ESPN on a premium package too.

 

[theogt]

Time warners only offer is "give us what we want and let us screw NFL fans"


BTW that doesnt look real

I think you mean the NFL, which is demanding $300 million in fees plus 100% of ad revenues from Time Warner.

 

[theogt]

Why will the MLB channel be on basic cable next year? Because MLB sold a % of the channel to the cable company

Time Warner would like to make the same deal with the NFL, but the NFL refuses to give up any of the ownership. It wants all the fees and all of the ad revenues.

The NFL is screwing it's own fans.

 

[BigDFan5]

I think you mean the NFL, which is demanding $300 million in fees plus 100% of ad revenues from Time Warner.

You mean a network wants to be paid for their channel? no way!

You keep quoting these numbers but I havent seen anything on their advertising revenues.



I found this funny

Comcast and Charter reached an 11th hour agreement in principle that averted a blackout of Comcast's Versus (the former OLN) and Golf Channel national sports networks on Charter's systems. The companies, whose contract expired 15 months ago, had extended the sports nets' expanded basic carriage through midnight last night. Charter wanted to put the nets on a sports tier; Comcast's rebuttal: the rising popularity of NHL (particularly in Charter's hometown of St. Louis) and the looming Stanley Cup Playoffs on Apr. 11. Taking a page from its competition, Comcast also ran ads urging sports fans to call Charter and complain, says Sporting News. With Comcast's video guru Page Thompson moving to Orlando as president of the Golf Channel, multiplatform content is also in the picture.

 

[AdamJT13]

I think you mean the NFL, which is demanding $300 million in fees plus 100% of ad revenues from Time Warner.

So, what's the problem with that?

 

[theogt]

So, what's the problem with that?

The problem is that neither side will budge. People act as if it's a one-sided issue. The NFL is screwing people as much as the cable company.

Multiple cable companies believe the NFL is asking for too much. When a single entity can't reach a solution with multiple separate entities, is it more likely that the multiple entities are being unreasonable? Or is it more likely that the single entity is being unreasonable?

 

[theogt]

You mean a network wants to be paid for their channel? no way!

You keep quoting these numbers but I havent seen anything on their advertising revenues.

Yes, but is it asking too much? Why isn't it willing to budge? Does it not care about its fans?

Why does that argument work against the cable companies, but not the NFL?

 

[DasTex]

My two cents on the subject is this:

Both are being greedy rich ------- that just want to make more money off consumers.

 

[BigDFan5]

The problem is that neither side will budge. People act as if it's a one-sided issue. The NFL is screwing people as much as the cable company.

Cable companies are trying to force me to pay extra for garbage channels nobody wants, NFL is trying to get the channel I want on a package I already have

Multiple cable companies believe the NFL is asking for too much. When a single entity can't reach a solution with multiple separate entities, is it more likely that the multiple entities are being unreasonable? Or is it more likely that the single entity is being unreasonable?

You say multiple entities like the cable companies are all different. They are partners man, Comcast, Time warner, Cox the biggest obstacles to the NFL Network are all partners on multiple ventures They are working together

 

[BigDFan5]

Yes, but is it asking too much? Why isn't it willing to budge? Does it not care about its fans?

Why does that argument work against the cable companies, but not the NFL?

70 cents per subscriber is what the NFL is asking, ESPn gets over 3 bucks per subscriber

Why doesnt the cable companies allow the channel A la carte? why is that not an option? They are going to raise my cable rate next year anyway why not add a channel to at least give me something in return for my increased bill?

 

[theogt]

Cable companies are trying to force me to pay extra for garbage channels nobody wants, NFL is trying to get the channel I want on a package I already have

The cable companies would be willing to put it on the basic package if the NFL would budge on its 100% ad revenues. The NFL wants to have its cake and eat it too. That's fine. As long as people realize that the people losing out from the NFL's demands are the fans.

You say multiple entities like the cable companies are all different. They are partners man, Comcast, Time warner, Cox the biggest obstacles to the NFL Network are all partners on multiple ventures They are working together

They're separately owned corporations that are in direct competition with one another. If you're suggesting that they're colluding to drive down prices, then call the DOJ Antitrust Division.

 

[Hoofbite]

I think you mean the NFL, which is demanding $300 million in fees plus 100% of ad revenues from Time Warner.

which is absolutely ridiculous.