Anyone seen the shot Time Warner took at NFL Network?

[theogt]

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.

I'm not saying either side should be forced to budge. I'd be the last person to suggest getting the government involved. I've criticized Jerry for his blatant rent seeking on the issue.

Seriously Adam, if you want to get into this conversation, please actually familiarize yourself with the conversation first.

 

[03EBZ06]

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

Charter doesn't, at least not in St. Louis area, NFLN is not an option or is in any sports package.

 

[dbair1967]

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.

I have a really good friend in Chicago, he told me the same thing

and I live in Atlanta and have friends all over FL and othe rparts of the SE where we get big storms regularly, mine hardly ever goes out and when it does, its for a few mins tops...when I had cable yrs ago it would sometimes go out on a perfectly sunny day and stay out for hours

David

 

[theogt]

Charter does't, at least not in St. Louis area, NFLN is not an option or is in any sports package.

That's because the NFL refuses to let them offer it. The point wasn't that it's actually being offered by the cable companies right now, but that it was an option for the resolution of the conflict, which is he what BigD was suggesting.

 

[GBP1960]

LOL @ the attempt to act like you know anything more about the issue without actually bringing any more knowledge to the table. Congrats on a longwinded post about nothing.

Wow,what a silly way to debate FACTS.


Hmm I see you know it all and refuse to admit when wrong :

another update:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6504396.html

 

[dbair1967]

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.

The major thing is picture and sound quality, which are huge improvements over cable...their HD and regular digital is nowhere near the quality of satellite...I'd also say pricing is a huge advantage and DTV rarely has a rate increase...here in Atlanta the cable companies would increase their rates 3 or 4 times yearly at some points

also, DirecTV does not offer internet any longer from what I understand, its done HughesNet...anywo, it doesnt matter...you can still get internet through something else (in my case, from AT&T) and its at least as good

David

 

[theogt]

Wow,what a silly way to debate FACTS.


Hmm I see you know it all and refuse to admit when wrong :

another update:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6504396.html

Why do you keep posting these useless articles that don't add anything to the discussion?

 

[GBP1960]

I'm not saying either side should be forced to budge. I'd be the last person to suggest getting the government involved. I've criticized Jerry for his blatant rent seeking on the issue.

I agree with that,the goverment shouldnt be involved in this what so ever. This is a free market. It should be up to Time Warner/Comcast and the NFLN to end this conflict.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I think we should start a coup; not against the cable companies, but against the NFL. I hate the cable companies as much as the next guy, but the issue here is money, and the NFL is the cash cow that isn't satisfied with the untold billions they already rake in from everything else.

If I were NBC, ESPN, FOX, and whoever else has paid BILLIONS for the rights to show NFL games, I would be so ****ing pissed that the NFL has taken games away to show on it's own network rather than allowing the broadcasting companies to show the games. Billions paid, and yet they take away some of the biggest drawing games.

F you NFL.

 

[GBP1960]

Why do you keep posting these useless articles that don't add anything to the discussion?

those "useless articles" show that you have been 100% wrong on a few comments of yours. Whether you want to accept that or not. Especially the revenue comment.

 

[theogt]

I agree with that,the goverment shouldnt be involved in this what so ever. This is a free market. It should be up to Time Warner/Comcast and the NFLN to end this conflict.

Exactly. And my point in this whole ordeal (regardless of who owns what and who gives up what) is that when a deal doesn't get done, BOTH sides are to blame. People blame the cable companies like the NFL is not at fault. That's simply not the case.

 

[theogt]

those "useless articles" show that you have been 100% wrong on a few comments of yours. Whether you want to accept that or not. Especially the revenue comment.

Yes, I misspoke on two issues. But it doesn't change a damned thing about the entire conversation. It's like pointing out a misspelling.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

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

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.

Do you argue just to argue.......do you really believe you are the authority on all things posted on this message board?

Equity means a stake in the ownership of the company, and ad revenues are included, just as copy paper and paper clips are.

Perhaps you should go back and read the articles posted, and quit calling people names..........here read this from an article posted earlier in this thread:

"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?

I won't post anymore on this subject, I don't argue with fools, they will only bring me down to their level and beat me with their experience.

 

[YosemiteSam]

The major thing is picture and sound quality, which are huge improvements over cable...their HD and regular digital is nowhere near the quality of satellite...I'd also say pricing is a huge advantage and DTV rarely has a rate increase...here in Atlanta the cable companies would increase their rates 3 or 4 times yearly at some points

also, DirecTV does not offer internet any longer from what I understand, its done HughesNet...anywo, it doesnt matter...you can still get internet through something else (in my case, from AT&T) and its at least as good

David

I don't have DirecTV to compare the HD quality, though I watch all the games (that I get to see) in HD and love it and the quality of it. (Of course I could be suffering from the Ragu effect, not knowing something is better because I've never having experienced it)

As for rate increases; I've heard that they do, but I've been in NY since Jan. 2005 and have paid $99/month for TV/Phone/Internet since I've been here and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

 

[GBP1960]

I think we should start a coup; not against the cable companies, but against the NFL. I hate the cable companies as much as the next guy, but the issue here is money, and the NFL is the cash cow that isn't satisfied with the untold billions they already rake in from everything else.

If I were NBC, ESPN, FOX, and whoever else has paid BILLIONS for the rights to show NFL games, I would be so ****ing pissed that the NFL has taken games away to show on it's own network rather than allowing the broadcasting companies to show the games. Billions paid, and yet they take away some of the biggest drawing games.

F you NFL.

I remind you that we NFL fans heard the same battle cry when ESPN first recieved those Sunday Night games also.

Do we all remember that time frame?

 

[theogt]

Do you argue just to argue.......do you really believe you are the authority on all things posted on this message board?

Equity means a stake in the ownership of the company, and ad revenues are included, just as copy paper and paper clips are.

Perhaps you should go back and read the articles posted, and quit calling people names..........here read this from an article posted earlier in this thread:



I won't post anymore on this subject, I don't argue with fools, they will only bring me down to their level and beat me with their experience.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

 

[theogt]

I think we should start a coup; not against the cable companies, but against the NFL. I hate the cable companies as much as the next guy, but the issue here is money, and the NFL is the cash cow that isn't satisfied with the untold billions they already rake in from everything else.

If I were NBC, ESPN, FOX, and whoever else has paid BILLIONS for the rights to show NFL games, I would be so ****ing pissed that the NFL has taken games away to show on it's own network rather than allowing the broadcasting companies to show the games. Billions paid, and yet they take away some of the biggest drawing games.

F you NFL.

Well, to be fair, when they paid those billions, the contracts provided NFLN with the option to show those games.

 

[GBP1960]

Yes, I misspoke on two issues. But it doesn't change a damned thing about the entire conversation. It's like pointing out a misspelling.

Yes it does,that was your entire premise of your original comments and added nausea in this thread of ad revenue. In which you were 100% WRONG on.

If you have another point other then spinning,I would love to hear it.

 

[VietCowboy]

Exactly. And my point in this whole ordeal (regardless of who owns what and who gives up what) is that when a deal doesn't get done, BOTH sides are to blame. People blame the cable companies like the NFL is not at fault. That's simply not the case.

people regularly deal with the cable companies..outages and many other problems. Cable overcharges grossly, so I usually call up every 6 months and complain, and I can usually find a CSR who will appease me by continuing to give me their introductory promotional prices. I have signed up for automatic payments, and every month, they charge me a late fee/return check fee making me call them up to take the charges off. I regularly have interruptions in my OnDemand services, and at least a couple of times per year have to call them up to have them reset my cable box. so yes, if this is another contention, I want to blame the cable company because they suck, and I cannot wait until the day I live in a place where I will have the choice to switch to FIOS or satellite

 

[theogt]

Yes it does,that was your entire premise of your original comments of ad revenue. In which you were 100% WRONG on.

If you have another point other then spinning,I would love to hear it.

No, it wasn't the entire premise of my argument. I've stated before that money is fungible. It doesn't matter if it comes down to ad revenues or equity stake or it doesn't matter if it's on a basic tier or a sports tier. Money is money is money. The entire deal boils down to a dollar amount. Both sides want more.

And by the way, we can agree that they've offered some ad revenue, but we don't know the conditions to that. We just don't know all of the facts to the situation. We don't know what goes on at the negotiating table to say which side is at fault. That has been my entire point in this thread and in every other thread this board has had on the subject.

You've jumped into the conversation in this single thread and just latched on to this single fact about ad revenue. That was never my point.