Anyone seen the shot Time Warner took at NFL Network?

[smarta5150]

I pay 3 bucks I believe for my "sports package" with comcast.

Just upgrade people

 

[AdamJT13]

The problem is that neither side will budge.

Why should they? They're in business. It's not public service, it's customer service. If you don't like their customer service, don't be a customer. Take your business to a company that will give you what you want.

Why should either side be forced to budge? The NFL believes it's in its best interest to demand a certain price for its product, and the cable companies believe it's in their best interest to pay no more than a certain amount. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[EPL0c0]

Time Warner is losing, not the NFL...

As a Time Warner subscriber, their argument is absolutely lame.

They say that they want to put NFL Network on a sports tier package because they don't feel that subscribers should have to pay for a channel they don't want. HA I say! I can guarantee that 100% of subscribers pay for at least one channel that they don't want. Can I get my monthly bill reduced in return for cancelling the channels that I don't want: Golf, anything spanish, all those music channels, all on-demand, home shopping channels, etc?

BTW, has Time Warner said how much they'd charge for this sports tier package?

 

[arglebargle]

Having watched Time Warner's line of BS for years, and having been cheated by them as well as forced to endure their lies and excuses during their decades of monopoly position here, I hope the NFL kicks their butts.

 

[Rack]

As a Time Warner subscriber, their argument is absolutely lame.

They say that they want to put NFL Network on a sports tier package because they don't feel that subscribers should have to pay for a channel they don't want. HA I say! I can guarantee that 100% of subscribers pay for at least one channel that they don't want. Can I get my monthly bill reduced in return for cancelling the channels that I don't want: Golf, anything spanish, all those music channels, all on-demand, home shopping channels, etc?

BTW, has Time Warner said how much they'd charge for this sports tier package?

But the cable companies are just looking out for their customers, right?

 

[dbair1967]

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.

this already happens anyway with the 50-80 other channels...

if DirecTV and Dish can have it as part of their basic service, so can cable, which has been guaging the public for two decades or more depending on where you live

its not on cable because of one reason- cable

David

 

[lspain1]

I find it a bit amusing that anyone in Cowboyszone would take the side of the cable companies. Some cable companies want to charge you more for the same service others are giving you free (or at least a lot less). An NFL fan should always take the side of the NFL in this matter. Someone who does not like the NFL should take the side of the cable companies.

As for me....I like my DirecTV.

 

[GBP1960]

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

.

This is very incorrect. You're also incorrect on the revenue,that has changed recently also . The NFLN has attempted to compromise with them yet they still act like children. This really isnt the NFL fault at all. You see companies like Time Warner and Comcast have stomped their feet and held thier breath for years and are used to getting their ways. It's rather nice seeing the NFLN and the BTN(Big Ten Network is in the same boat) stand up to them.

Now they have a little competition in Dish Network and DirectTv they want to cry wolf? after they have basically enjoyed a monoply for years?


I would suggest to start reading up on the latest on this:


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/5321992.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-sp.nflnetwork22nov22,0,1990620.story

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7472714


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3121081

Those for starters,if you want more I will provide them.


We all have choices to make here,sorry but after watching a companies like Time Warner for want to pass the buck so to speak on to the consumers and make them take a high end package to get the channel? After watching TWC have $11 Billion revenue in 2006? TWC's most recent reports show revenues of $14.7 billion and gross profits of $6.41 billion?

If you dont want Dish or DTV,At&T U-Verse also offers the NFLN now.

That'S BILLIONS people and they are attempting to pass the cost onto their consumers? LOL Wake Up cable subscribers,your cable companies are feeding you a line of crap and you're buying into it.

Let realize something right here and now,they don't HAVE to charge you extra for this channel,they are attempting to CHOICE to do that. That's were the entire pissing match is happening. Ask yourself this,do you get a discount on your cable bill for all those shopping channels that PAY time warner and comcast to broadcoast them?

I just cant phatom why people continue to get screwed monthly by their cable companies when their is other choices out there.

 

[dbair1967]

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.

its readily apparent you like to argue Theo, but the above statement is not true...the NFL is demanding that cable make NFL Network part of their basic package so EVERYONE would have access to it without having to pay a premium, which is what cable wants, to be able to charge a premium for the service...

its also erroneous to state cable only wants to "pass the cost along to the customers that want NFL Network" as they arnt simply wanting to pass along the cost, they are charging on top of that...

the cable companies are the scum of the earth...they have been robbing customers blind for years and providing terrible service on top of it...

David

 

[dbair1967]

I just cant phatom why people continue to get screwed monthly by their cable companies when their is other choices out there.

then factor in that their product is grossly inferior as well

David

 

[GBP1960]

then factor in that their product is grossly inferior as well

David

Yes sir and we are having the same type arguement/threads on our Packer boards as well.

I just cant understand why anyone would still use comcast or time warner if they have other choices. Soooooooo much better products out there.

I also love the those dish's go out in bad weather shtick we all hear. I tell you what,being in Wisconsin, and getting all four seasons. I have had less trouble and down time with our dish then our local cable,even with T-storms and Snow.

 

[PullMyFinger]

Comcast has the NFL network as part of their sports tier, 5 bucks a month.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Wow......looks like this situation could be worked out for the best interest of the fans.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Time Warner is losing, not the NFL...

Wrong. This is a war of attrition, both sides are taking heavy damage. One is trying to choke the other until they give in and they are both choking in the processes. The question is, which one will come up for a breath first?

 

[GBP1960]

Comcast has the NFL network as part of their sports tier, 5 bucks a month.

Not all comcast does. Certain areas yes.

 

[YosemiteSam]

then factor in that their product is grossly inferior as well

David

It is? OnDemand is not offered by DirecTV. HD is offered without extra charge. Cable internet is better than what DirecTV offers too. I also have Phone service and it's all for $99 a month, so it has a better price also.

DirecTV has the NFL Sunday Ticket. After that what exact does it offer that Cable does not? Don't get me wrong, I hate the cable company as much as the next guy, but to say DirecTV is a better product I don't know about that.

 

[GBP1960]

DirecTV has the NFL Sunday Ticket. After that what exact does it offer that Cable does not?

:umm:

Oh I dont know, a boat load more HD channels and the NFL Network for starters?


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/11/18/week11/2.html


Can't we all just get along? Isn't the pie big enough for everyone to have a piece?
Is it your inalienable right to have the NFL Network on your basic cable subscription? The NFL thinks so. Big Cable -- Time Warner Cable (Time Warner is the parent company of Time Warner Cable and Sports Illustrated) and Comcast, most notably -- think not.
We'll start to feel the heat on this issue Thursday night, when the first of eight games in 38 days is aired, a tepid matchup between Indianapolis and Atlanta (that lineup is the extent of live NFL football on the 24-hour NFL channel). The two referendum games come later, a month apart -- Green Bay at Dallas on Nov. 29, and New England at the Giants on Dec. 29.
The Green Bay-Dallas game will draw attention because this game for NFC supremacy and likely home-field advantage through the playoffs won't be seen on cable TV in either team's state capital; Madison and Austin don't have the NFL network on their cable systems.
The Patriots could be going for an undefeated regular season in week 17 at the Meadowlands, and 70 percent of the country with cable TV won't be able to watch because the big cable companies -- Time Warner and Comcast being the largest -- haven't reached a deal with the NFL to show the channel.
This is the second season with eight games on the fledgling network. The NFL eschewed a $400 million annual offer from Comcast to farm out the eight games before the 2006 season so the league could show them on its own network. Though the NFL has made deals with 240 smaller companies nationwide, most of the country is locked into Big Cable. And it's highly unlikely a deal will be made with either Time Warner or Comcast to break the logjam in time to show any or all of the eight games this year, though the Federal Communication Commission may force the two sides to binding arbitration after its monthly meeting in Washington on Nov. 27.
I want to lay out the two positions so you can have an opinion, if you want to have one. I've had a lot of people who won't see the games tell me, in essence: a pox on both their houses for not being able to figure out a fair way to give us the games.
I'll let Dallas owner Jerry Jones, the chairman of the league's broadcast committee, lay out his side, then you'll hear from the cable companies.
"We offer the cable company several minutes of advertising inventory on NFL Network. Every hour of every day they receive commercial time where they sell the ads and keep all the revenue. And in an effort to be better partners, we even set aside extra commercial inventory during our highly rated NFL games. Each cable operator gets 18 30-second ads during these games and they keep all the revenue from those too. Why do they have to charge the fans?
"Ask the fans this: Would you trade in three shopping channels, the Versus Network and Turner Classic Movies for the opportunity to have one channel in this country dedicated to football year-round? We offer a tremendous array of football-related content, the most popular programming in the country, and we do it for the cost to the cable operator of less than one movie ticket a year per subscriber. Would you rather go see one movie in the theater for two hours or have 24/7 year-round access to football?''
Big Cable clearly thinks the NFL Network is expensive niche programming, and disputes the league's claim it wouldn't have to raise rates if it took on the network. As one cable company official said to me: "The NFL wants us to show eight football games in six weeks, and then the rest of the year show a channel that has more repeats than ESPN News. They want us to do something that would force us to raise our rates. And quite frankly, there's been no groundswell from our customers to do this.''
I thought the fair thing might be to show how much money the cable companies are charged to carry some channels, just to put the stance of the NFL into some perspective. The firm SNL Financial, based in Charlottesville, Va., gathers financial data for the cable industry and provided me with these figures:
COST PER SUBSCRIBER HOUSEHOLD (per month)
Leading non-sports channels
TNT: 91 cents
Disney Channel: 83 cents
USA Network: 51 cents
CNN: 46 cents
TBS: 44 cents
Nickelodeon: 43 cents
FX: 36 cents
Leading sports channels
ESPN: $3.26
Fox Sports Net: $1.92
NFL Network: 80 cents
Fox College Sports: 63 cents
NHL Network: 51 cents
ESPN2: 46 cents
NBA TV: 36 cents
Keep in mind that this is an average. As Jones says, for mass distribution with the big companies, the NFL would likely make a deal with the cables for 60 or 65 cents per subscriber per month. One compromise offered by Time Warner but turned down by the NFL was to have the company make the eight games available on pay-per-view, with the NFL setting the pay-per-view price per game and collecting all revenue.
I expressed my disbelief to one cable analyst that cable companies viewed the value of the NFL Network almost double that of CNN, which has to be a staple of every cable system in the United States, with instantaneous coverage of wars and disasters worldwide. "You've got to understand one thing about sports and cable TV,'' the analyst said. "Sports rights fees are the one thing in the business that keep spiraling up and up, while the cost of a lot of these other channels, even the ones that seem so important, are remaining relatively flat.''
It still seems insane to me. Even the NHL Network -- and I don't even know what that is -- costs cable companies, on average, five cents more than CNN. NBA TV (36 cents per subscriber per month) is nine cents more than CNBC.
I have DirecTV, and, of course, the satellite carries the Network. But I don't watch the Network much, because I don't have time to watch much NFL programming other than games. Certainly I'll watch the games when they come on, beginning Thursday night. I heard Jim Nantz say on WFAN recently he doesn't have it in his Connecticut home, and my friend at ESPN.com, Len Pasquarelli, told me he doesn't watch it either.
I have nothing against it, and I'm sure I'm missing things by not watching the regular programming. But there's a sea of NFL programming on ESPN and Fox and everywhere else, and you could go blind watching it all. The NFL Network, it seems to me, would have a better case if it had more live events than eight games, the week at the NFL Scouting Combine and draft coverage.
You make the call. Who's to blame for you not having your games, cable America?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/11/18/week11/3.html 3 of 9


​

 

[VietCowboy]

It is? OnDemand is not offered by DirecTV. HD is offered without extra charge. Cable internet is better than what DirecTV offers too. I also have Phone service and it's all for $99 a month, so it has a better price also.

DirecTV has the NFL Sunday Ticket. After that what exact does it offer that Cable does not? Don't get me wrong, I hate the cable company as much as the next guy, but to say DirecTV is a better product I don't know about that.

comcast charges 6.95, so no HD is not free.

 

[lspain1]

It is? OnDemand is not offered by DirecTV. HD is offered without extra charge. Cable internet is better than what DirecTV offers too. I also have Phone service and it's all for $99 a month, so it has a better price also.

DirecTV has the NFL Sunday Ticket. After that what exact does it offer that Cable does not? Don't get me wrong, I hate the cable company as much as the next guy, but to say DirecTV is a better product I don't know about that.

I'm a distant fan so Sunday Ticket is a requirement for me, but let me ask you a couple of questions.

Do you like HD programming? Do you find yourself switching to an HD channel because it's just better to watch?

If you answered yes then DirecTV has a better product because it offers more HD channels than any other source right now. DirecTV has 64 full time national or regional HD channels and 24 part time channels. Many of these channels are sports oriented. This doesn't include the local HD channels for most metropolitan areas. I also didn't include the distant national network feeds in my count. HD content is delivered at high quality, many more channels are planned and channels are being rolled out quickly right now. Check it out for yourself at:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=914047

I'm not shilling for DirecTV. I get the service (at a modest reduction in price) via my local phone company where I combine it with DSL for internet access. I find upgraded DSL to be more than adequate for my internet needs so the cable modem download speeds are not a hot item for me.

Everyone has their own perception of what a "quality product" means so YMMV, but for me this is a no brainer. DirecTV has more sports, more sports in HD, a better HD product, and little to no drawbacks.

 

[theogt]

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

Yes, it does. But is also includes 100% of 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?

My guess is he just made it up. Because it wasn't in the article, I've never read anything like that, and after a little searching I haven't found anything to back it up.