Anyone seen the shot Time Warner took at NFL Network?

[theogt]

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?

A la carte? You mean, only people that want it would pay for it? Like a sports package?

 

[BigDFan5]

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.

Still waiting for the lin saying NFL demands 100% of ad revenues and that cable companies will allow NFl network for a % of ad revenues. Because common sense of almost every cable deal says the cable companies themselves will get air time which helps negate their costs

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.

I am suggesting they are partners on many ventures this is documented fact, if you want to believe they are all taking the same exact stance on accident thats fine, me I wont be so naive

 

[BigDFan5]

A la carte? You mean, only people that want it would pay for it? Like a sports package?

No not a sports package, dont sell me garbage you cant move for 5-10 bucks a month


Allow me to have the NFL network for 70 cents (which covers their costs)

 

[theogt]

Still waiting for the lin saying NFL demands 100% of ad revenues and that cable companies will allow NFl network for a % of ad revenues. Because common sense of almost every cable deal says the cable companies themselves will get air time which helps negate their costs

Thats the deal they struck with MLB. They NFL has refused to accept it.

I am suggesting they are partners on many ventures this is documented fact, if you want to believe they are all taking the same exact stance on accident thats fine, me I wont be so naive

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm#file

No not a sports package, dont sell me garbage you cant move for 5-10 bucks a month

Allow me to have the NFL network for 70 cents (which covers their costs)

That's only if everyone buys it. It's 89 cents if the costs are spread over every customer. If it were "a la carte" not everyone would buy it and hence the price would go up. Presumably, given how much the NFL is demanding, the price charged to the customers would end up being around $5 a pop.

 

[dallasfaniac]

Comcast, one of the opponents of NFL Network, charges it's basic package customers for Versus and Golf Channel even if they don't want it, even though they are channels they own and don't have to pay fees. So passing along 70 cents per suscriber per month for NFL network isn't a big deal in comparison.

240 smaller cable companies provide NFL Network as part of the standard package, it's the biggest cable companies that don't want to.

Time Warner purchased two cable companies that provided NFL Network in their basic package to 3.3 Million subscribers. They tried to take that away from them and the FCC had to step in.

Fox, NBC and ESPN are willing to shell out 2.4 billion in fees to carry games because of the profit the NFL draws. I'm not surprised that the NFL wouldn't want a slice of the pie too.

Seems to me it's the big cable companies that are sticking it to the fans.

 

[thewivil]

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?

Why is it that the NFL was able to come to an agreement with the satellite companies then?

 

[theogt]

Comcast, one of the opponents of NFL Network, charges it's basic package customers for Versus and Golf Channel even if they don't want it, even though they are channels they own and don't have to pay fees. So passing along 70 cents per suscriber per month for NFL network isn't a big deal in comparison.

240 smaller cable companies provide NFL Network as part of the standard package, it's the biggest cable companies that don't want to.

Time Warner purchased two cable companies that provided NFL Network in their basic package to 3.3 Million subscribers. They tried to take that away from them and the FCC had to step in.

Fox, NBC and ESPN are willing to shell out 2.4 billion in fees to carry games because of the profit the NFL draws. I'm not surprised that the NFL wouldn't want a slice of the pie too.

Seems to me it's the big cable companies that are sticking it to the fans.

We can get past this "basic" vs. "sports package" nonsense. Money is fungible. It all boils down to a dollar amount.

 

[theogt]

Why is it that the NFL was able to come to an agreement with the satellite companies then?

Presumably because satellite providers have less bargaining power (i.e., fewer customers) such that the NFL can extract more.

 

[BigDFan5]

Thats the deal they struck with MLB. They NFL has refused to accept it.

Still waiting on the link

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm#file

Do you really believe these cable companies partner up on other ventures but NEVER collude in situations such as this? The link does nothing the DOJ doesnt care

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm#file

That's only if everyone buys it. It's 89 cents if the costs are spread over every customer. If it were "a la carte" not everyone would buy it and hence the price would go up. Presumably, given how much the NFL is demanding, the price charged to the customers would end up being around $5 a pop.

Speculation, the cable companies wont even offer this as a choice because it would hurt their bottom line.

Sports tier costs 5-10 a month all the channels combined cost the cable companies 3 bucks or so, why charge me double their costs? I guess its because they care

 

[Daudr]

Still waiting for the lin saying NFL demands 100% of ad revenues and that cable companies will allow NFl network for a % of ad revenues. Because common sense of almost every cable deal says the cable companies themselves will get air time which helps negate their costs

I don't know why you are "waiting." It's documented all over in many articles. Try Google, it's your friend.

 

[theogt]

Still waiting on the link

Link for what?

Do you really believe these cable companies partner up on other ventures but NEVER collude in situations such as this? The link does nothing the DOJ doesnt care

They're independently owned companies. What don't you get?

Speculation, the cable companies wont even offer this as a choice because it would hurt their bottom line.

I think you're getting confused. The cable companies are offering this.

Sports tier costs 5-10 a month all the channels combined cost the cable companies 3 bucks or so, why charge me double their costs? I guess its because they care

Huh? 3 bucks or so? How did you come up with this figure? We know how much it would cost the cable companies. $300 million. That's 89 cents per customer.

 

[theogt]

I don't know why you are "waiting." It's documented all over in many articles. Try Google, it's your friend.

Try the Daily Zone. There's an article about 3/4 of the way down on the page.

 

[dallasfaniac]

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

If the NFL could sell its network to cable companies across the country, including Comcast and Time Warner's 38 million subscribers, the rate would generate more than $300 million in subscription fees annually.

Sounds like that $300 million is not just from Time Warner to me. As you say, numbers are fungible.

 

[BigDFan5]

Link for what?

Saying they are demanding 100% of all advertising revenue, I honestly have not seen that documented

They're independently owned companies. What don't you get?

They are also parners, and it is in all their best interests to get the NFL network on a sports tier where they can charge double/triple the costs and make a hefty profit, what dont you get?

I think you're getting confused. The cable companies are offering this.

No the cable companies are not offering this, they are offering a sports tier where you pay 5/10 a month for multiple channels

Huh? 3 bucks or so? How did you come up with this figure? We know how much it would cost the cable companies. $300 million. That's 89 cents per customer.

I got it from an article saying NFL wanted 80 cents per subscriber, and that comcast chages 6.99 per month for the sports tier, yet every channel on the tier costs them a total of 2.90 (that includes NFLN) So they pay 2.90 and charge 7 bucks

 

[theogt]

Saying they are demanding 100% of all advertising revenue, I honestly have not seen that documented

It's in an article in the Daily Zone.

They are also parners, and it is in all their best interests to get the NFL network on a sports tier where they can charge double/triple the costs and make a hefty profit, what dont you get?

It's just like any other negotiating situation in which you have competitors negotiating with a supplier. They all want the best terms.

No the cable companies are not offering this, they are offering a sports tier where you pay 5/10 a month for multiple channels

Which is essentially the same as paying just for the NFL Network, because the other channels are at a fraction of the cost.

For example, I sell beans. Blue beans, green beans, and red beans.

I could sell you blue beans for $4. I could sell you green and red beans for $.50.

Or I could sell you all 3 for $5. Does it make a difference if I sell them "a la carte" or if I only sell them in a package. There isn't much of a difference, even if you don't like green and red beans.

I got it from an article saying NFL wanted 80 cents per subscriber, and that comcast chages 6.99 per month for the sports tier, yet every channel on the tier costs them a total of 2.90 (that includes NFLN) So they pay 2.90 and charge 7 bucks

This all depends on the specific numbers of the situation. We're just talking past each other until we know more.

 

[BigDFan5]

It's in an article in the Daily Zone.[/quote/]

I read the article it was not mentioned there, you posted in that thread the same 100% mantra and someone replied to you saying you were wrong. You never replied to him. http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1788573&postcount=9

It's just like any other negotiating situation in which you have competitors negotiating with a supplier. They all want the best terms.

So you see nothing wrong with the cable companies colluding to get NFLN on a sports tier and screwing NFl fans?

Which is essentially the same as paying just for the NFL Network, because the other channels are at a fraction of the cost.

For example, I sell beans. Blue beans, green beans, and red beans.

I could sell you blue beans for $4. I could sell you green and red beans for $.50.

Or I could sell you all 3 for $5. What's the difference? Not much.

All the channels combined including NFL network doesnt equal 3 bucks, yet get charged double that, sorry not the same.

This all depends on the specific numbers of the situation. We're just talking past each other until we know more.

I told you the specific numbers NFLN, Tennis channel, NBA channel, NHL Network etc. All come out to 2.90 total, Comcast is charging 6.99

 

[theogt]

I read the article it was not mentioned there, you posted in that thread the same 100% mantra and someone replied to you saying you were wrong. You never replied to him. http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1788573&postcount=9

It's in the article. Read it again. They're not willing to give up any of the ad revenues. The $300 million was for all subscribers, not just Time Warner. Sorry, I mispoke about that, but that doesn't change anything.

So you see nothing wrong with the cable companies colluding to get NFLN on a sports tier and screwing NFl fans?

Colluding? They're all trying to achieve the best terms possible. We have no evidence of whether they're colluding.

All the channels combined including NFL network doesnt equal 3 bucks, yet get charged double that, sorry not the same.

I told you the specific numbers NFLN, Tennis channel, NBA channel, NHL Network etc. All come out to 2.90 total, Comcast is charging 6.99

I told you, we don't know the specifics. We don't know what it costs for each channel for Time Warner.

And yes, there's going to be some profit margin. That's why they're in business, right?

 

[theogt]

Here's the part in the article:

Interestingly, when Major League Baseball launches its cable TV network in 2009, it will be on the digital basic tier that football seeks. Coincidentally, baseball has sold equity interests in its network to big cable carriers. The NFL adamantly claims it has no interest in such an arrangement.

Equity interest in the company essentially means getting a portion of the ad revenues.

 

[BigDFan5]

Colluding? They're all trying to achieve the best terms possible. We have no evidence of whether they're colluding.

If you wish to believe these companies who partner on other ventures happen to take the exact same stance at the same time was a pure coincidence thats fine, I dont believe that for a second. They are trying to make the most money they can, it has nothing to do with terms or protecting their customers.

I told you, we don't know the specifics. We don't know what it costs for each channel for Time Warner.

I told you specifics that were in the articl, you think TW pays much more than comcast? doubtful

And yes, there's going to be some profit margin. That's why they're in business, right?

some profit margin? charging double to triple the cost is more than "some" profit margin

 

[BigDFan5]

Here's the part in the article:

Equity interest in the company essentially means getting a portion of the ad revenues.

Equity interest means partial ownership which extends well beyond ad revenues.

Now do you have anything that really says they want 100% ad revenues? Or a reply for the gentleman who said that was false, and they were offering Ad time to the cable companies?