Anyone seen the shot Time Warner took at NFL Network?

[theogt]

Have a link for that? I would love to read the whole story of that. This is the first I've heard of that one.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071030

 

[GBP1960]

I dont think the nfl will allow both cable and directv to have sunday ticket like the extra innings, center ice etc...packages.....IT was either or.

.

That's correct ,but the NFL didnt "lock" anyone out. Time Warner choose not to outbid Direct TV for that service. That's free market. Sorry,but that is how the cookie crumbles in our Country.

My biggest gripe of this entire situation is that the two big cable companies are being very hypocritical in their entire stance here. They have carried the attitude of they can do what ever they want to both their consumers and the companies they provide service for. However,now that they have a little competion. They are going to cry wolf? Smaller market cable companies,both direct TV,Dish Network, and At&T U-Verse all offer the NFLN on their basic tiers.

Both Time Warner and Comcast just need accept that there are just not going to get their way this time. They have been the bully on the block for years. They really need to stop that business practice or they will continue to lose customers.

Sorry,but I just can not bring myself to feel sorry for them. I do feel bad for the people that dont get or want the NFLN. However,in the grand scheme of things. This really isnt the NFL screwing it's fans here.

 

[theebs]

thanks for the article theogt.

 

[GBP1960]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071030

nice article!



In 2002, the DirecTV exclusive on Sunday Ticket expired. By then, digital cable was on the horizon and Sunday Ticket was widely expected to shift to cable. The cable carriers wanted games sold individually, pay-per-view. The league wanted an all-encompassing package, which now -- as Sunday Ticket -- retails for $250 per year plus DirecTV-bundled costs that seem to vary depending on what phase the moons of Saturn are in at the exact moment you order. A power struggle ensued, with the big egos in the executive suites of the cable carriers essentially saying, "We'll decide how to market your games." This not only offended the big egos in the executive suites of the NFL but was totally different from the league's traditional partnership relationships with the broadcast networks and ESPN. In the background, the cable carriers were jockeying against each other to start their own sports networks and were angered by rumors the NFL would found what became NFL Network. In December 2002, the league gave the cable carriers a deadline for an offer for Sunday Ticket; the deadline passed, so the league re-upped with DirecTV; the cable carriers then presented a too-late offer and issued press releases denouncing the league for not waiting.

The 2002 turn of events pleased the broadcast networks, which still weren't happy about loss of local ratings and local advertising -- when a Sunday Ticket subscriber watches an out-of-market game, local ads are not inserted into the blank time a network computer leaves. After Fox joined NFL broadcasting, Fox said it would object unless Sunday Ticket subscribers were capped at 1 million, a restriction on access that belies what the NFL now says about how the NFL Network should be widely available. The 1 million Sunday Ticket subscriber ceiling has been expanded somewhat since, but not by much: The NFL continues to tell the broadcast networks not to worry about Sunday Ticket because its availability isn't growing, and that belies everything the NFL is saying to Congress about the NFL Network. In 2004, the NFL renewed the DirecTV exclusive again, until 2010, after fighting again with cable carriers about how to present the games. The NFL wants Sunday Ticket sold to cable roughly the way iN Demand movies are sold, through a single source with a single national price. (iN Demand is a consortium that markets movies to cable provides, not a service of individual cable firms.) The cable carriers rejected this, and again the over-the-air broadcast networks were relieved.

 

[theebs]

That's correct ,but the NFL didnt "lock" anyone out. Time Warner choose not to outbid Direct TV for that service. That's free market. Sorry,but that is how the cookie crumbles in our Country.

My biggest gripe of this entire situation is that the two big cable companies are being very hypocritical in their entire stance here. They have carried the attitude of they can do what ever they want to both their consumers and the companies they provide service for. However,now that they have a little competion. They are going to cry wolf? Smaller market cable companies,both direct TV,Dish Network, and At&T U-Verse all offer the NFLN on their basic tiers.

Both Time Warner and Comcast just need accept that there are just not going to get their way this time. They have been the bully on the block for years. They really need to stop that business practice or they will continue to lose customers.

Sorry,but I just can not bring myself to feel sorry for them. I do feel bad for the people that dont get or want the NFLN. However,in the grand scheme of things. This really isnt the NFL screwing it's fans here.

Hey I dont feel bad for the cable companies one bit. At the end of the day in 2007 Mony matters to all three of these companies. Not people, or whats fair or what they want. Its about money.

Like I said, I am lucky. I will be at the game and also will record it in hd at home and watch it later. So for me its not an issue, I get it OTA for free here also which I will record also.

 

[VietCowboy]

That's correct ,but the NFL didnt "lock" anyone out. Time Warner choose not to outbid Direct TV for that service. That's free market. Sorry,but that is how the cookie crumbles in our Country.

My biggest gripe of this entire situation is that the two big cable companies are being very hypocritical in their entire stance here. They have carried the attitude of they can do what ever they want to both their consumers and the companies they provide service for. However,now that they have a little competion. They are going to cry wolf? Smaller market cable companies,both direct TV,Dish Network, and At&T U-Verse all offer the NFLN on their basic tiers.

Both Time Warner and Comcast just need accept that there are just not going to get their way this time. They have been the bully on the block for years. They really need to stop that business practice or they will continue to lose customers.

Sorry,but I just can not bring myself to feel sorry for them. I do feel bad for the people that dont get or want the NFLN. However,in the grand scheme of things. This really isnt the NFL screwing it's fans here.

yeah, i can see it sort of like setting a precedent. if the NFL gives in, all future privately owned channels can fall for it. I can see in the future cable puts only their own channels on the basic tier and force the other channels into a package and charge similar to a la carte, but basically paying more because if you want those channels, you will have to pay more for it. So, while I don't think the NFL is faultless, I do hope they "win"

 

[theogt]

nice article!



In 2002, the DirecTV exclusive on Sunday Ticket expired. By then, digital cable was on the horizon and Sunday Ticket was widely expected to shift to cable. The cable carriers wanted games sold individually, pay-per-view. The league wanted an all-encompassing package, which now -- as Sunday Ticket -- retails for $250 per year plus DirecTV-bundled costs that seem to vary depending on what phase the moons of Saturn are in at the exact moment you order. A power struggle ensued, with the big egos in the executive suites of the cable carriers essentially saying, "We'll decide how to market your games." This not only offended the big egos in the executive suites of the NFL but was totally different from the league's traditional partnership relationships with the broadcast networks and ESPN. In the background, the cable carriers were jockeying against each other to start their own sports networks and were angered by rumors the NFL would found what became NFL Network. In December 2002, the league gave the cable carriers a deadline for an offer for Sunday Ticket; the deadline passed, so the league re-upped with DirecTV; the cable carriers then presented a too-late offer and issued press releases denouncing the league for not waiting.

The 2002 turn of events pleased the broadcast networks, which still weren't happy about loss of local ratings and local advertising -- when a Sunday Ticket subscriber watches an out-of-market game, local ads are not inserted into the blank time a network computer leaves. After Fox joined NFL broadcasting, Fox said it would object unless Sunday Ticket subscribers were capped at 1 million, a restriction on access that belies what the NFL now says about how the NFL Network should be widely available. The 1 million Sunday Ticket subscriber ceiling has been expanded somewhat since, but not by much: The NFL continues to tell the broadcast networks not to worry about Sunday Ticket because its availability isn't growing, and that belies everything the NFL is saying to Congress about the NFL Network. In 2004, the NFL renewed the DirecTV exclusive again, until 2010, after fighting again with cable carriers about how to present the games. The NFL wants Sunday Ticket sold to cable roughly the way iN Demand movies are sold, through a single source with a single national price. (iN Demand is a consortium that markets movies to cable provides, not a service of individual cable firms.) The cable carriers rejected this, and again the over-the-air broadcast networks were relieved.

Oh my god, like you were so totally wrong!!! Like you don't know what you're talking about because you were wrong about one single issue!!!!

 

[Chocolate Lab]

If the NFL's stance is so untenable, how is it that so many of the smaller cable companies have been able to carry NFLN yet Time Warner can't?

Like Adam said, I don't see anything really wrong here. The smaller companies must see that carrying NFLN adds value to their product, so they are willing to eat a small expense. Time Warner is a big enough entity that it believes it can dictate better terms to the NFL. Maybe it's right and it can.

But from my experience, the last thing cable cares about is caring for its customers. That's pure marketing baloney.

And oh, BTW -- Adam has also pointed out in the past that it was easier to negotiate the Sunday Ticket deal with one company (DTV) vs. many different cable companies.

 

[jay cee]

I used to be a rabid sports fan but over the years different sports have done things which irritated me so I quit paying any attention to baseball, basketball, hockey and college football and I am still a happy and fulfilled person and do not miss them at all.

NFL football is the only sport I watch anymore but if they continue to do things that I find irritating, I shall walk away from the NFL as well and not look back.

I have not paid to attend a professional sporting event since 1995 for that very reason. I also refuse to pay for pay per view or Sunday Ticket.

It's too bad all fans don't go on "strike". That's the only way that the leagues would ever truly began to put their fans best interest first.

 

[GBP1960]

Oh my god, like you were so totally wrong!!! Like you don't know what you're talking about because you were wrong about one single issue!!!!

Not really it goes a long way about my bully on the block comments.

Honestly, with the history of the cable companies have of screwing things up. why would the NFL allow companies such as Time Warner or Comcast choice how to market their games? That was in the best intrest of the NFL,in it self. I dont blame them for that.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I used to be a rabid sports fan but over the years different sports have done things which irritated me so I quit paying any attention to baseball, basketball, hockey and college football and I am still a happy and fulfilled person and do not miss them at all.

NFL football is the only sport I watch anymore but if they continue to do things that I find irritating, I shall walk away from the NFL as well and not look back.

I know where you are coming from. Basketball alienated me and I used to love the Mavericks dating back to the beginning of their franchise. My pasion for the NBA really took a hit about 3-4 years ago. The way they treat players differently based on their stature within the league. A foul is a foul whether Shaq/Duncan commits or a first year undrafted free agent that has a super generic name like Michael Jones commits it and the reverse where players get phantom fouls against big named players. Then the whole flopping for fouls is very bush league.

 

[theogt]

Not really it goes a long way about my bully on the block comments.

Honestly, with the history of the cable companies have of screwing things up. why would the NFL allow companies such as Time Warner or Comcast choice how to market their games? That was in the best intrest of the NFL,in it self. I dont blame them for that.

If you want to continue with your lies, go ahead.

I kid, I kid.

 

[GBP1960]

If the NFL's stance is so untenable, how is it that so many of the smaller cable companies have been able to carry NFLN yet Time Warner can't?

Like Adam said, I don't see anything really wrong here. The smaller companies must see that carrying NFLN adds value to their product, so they are willing to eat a small expense. Time Warner is a big enough entity that it believes it can dictate better terms to the NFL. Maybe it's right and it can.

E-Freaking-Xactly,and that is what Time Warners stance is.


However, the dollar amount and gross profit Time Warner makes yearly. Why would they continue to be so stubborn about this?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I know where you are coming from. Basketball alienated me and I used to love the Mavericks dating back to the beginning of their franchise. My pasion for the NBA really took a hit about 3-4 years ago. The way they treat players differently based on their stature within the league. A foul is a foul whether Shaq/Duncan commits or a first year undrafted free agent that has a super generic name like Michael Jones commits it and the reverse where players get phantom fouls against big named players. Then the whole flopping for fouls is very bush league.

I'm totally with you. That's why I got a little worried when I saw the NFL starting to market "stars" like Reggie Bush and Leinart based on their draft status and college highlights rather than their NFL accomplishments.

Let's hope that we never, ever get to the point where Randy Moss only has to get one foot in while Patrick Crayton has to get two. But I think that surely the NFL is smarter than that.

 

[BigDFan5]

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.

Or you could be wrong, and have been wrong consistently

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

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?

 

[theogt]

Or you could be wrong, and have been wrong consistently

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

Try reading the entire thread.

 

[BigDFan5]

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.

Those 2 issues were the only 2 points you brought up in every thread

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

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 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.

 

[theogt]

Those 2 issues were the only 2 points you brought up in every thread

They were ancillary to my entire point. Whether it's 100% of ad revenues or equity or whatever, it doesn't matter. It all boils down to a dollar amount.

It's like pointing out a misspelling and thinking you've won the argument.

 

[AdamJT13]

I'm not saying either side should be forced to budge.

Then why did you say that neither side budging is a problem? What is the "problem" with neither side budging?

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.

I'm quite familiar with the conversation. I just don't see what the problem is.

 

[BigDFan5]

They were ancillary to my entire point. Whether it's 100% of ad revenues or equity or whatever, it doesn't matter. It all boils down to a dollar amount.

It's like pointing out a misspelling and thinking you've won the argument.

I just go by your posts Ogt, and you always mention 2 things, both of which have been proven wrong. You didnt talk about money until your argument started crumbling