Who's at Fault? NFL Network or Cable? You Choose

[Tuna Helper]

That's quite an assumption you're placing there.

Numerous companies in diverse markets with diverse directors and officers and diverse shareholders all have the EXACT SAME business model and make the EXACT SAME business decisions. Yes, that's MUCH MORE LIKELY than the NFL being the culprit.

Not an assumption, its true. Look at the offerings for Comcast, TWC, Cox, and Charter. They are all the exact same. The rates for basic cable are all within a few bucks of each other, and HS internet is within several dollars of each other.

The tiers are basically laid out the same and the equipment is the same.

Ever noticed that they still do not compete against each other in the same market?

 

[theogt]

I'll say it again. Cable is at fault. DirecTV and Dish had no problem coming to an agreement with the NFL. If you want to blame the NFL fine, I don't care I have DirecTv and NFL Network and will be watching the Game.

This is such a great argument. I ask why the cable companies are at fault and you reply, "Cable is at fault."

Great argument.

 

[Concord]

the 2 major sattelite companies, and over 170 cable companies added NFLN with no additional charge to customers, only a few resist. They resist because they want to gouge the consumer with a large monthly fee for a sports tier just to get 1 channel

Like I said raking people over the coals again.

DirecTV had the NFL network before I even knew what it was...And for no more money.

You can keep your cable.

 

[theogt]

Not an assumption, its true. Look at the offerings for Comcast, TWC, Cox, and Charter. They are all the exact same. The rates for basic cable are all within a few bucks of each other, and HS internet is within several dollars of each other.

The tiers are basically laid out the same and the equipment is the same.

Ever noticed that they still do not compete against each other in the same market?

I would expect the market price to be reasonably similar, considering everything I learned about economics back in high school. Saying they're charging roughly the same price is hardly saying they have the same business model and make the exact same business decisions.

Try again.

 

[Concord]

This is such a great argument. I ask why the cable companies are at fault and you reply, "Cable is at fault."

Great argument.

Because they want to add it to a top tear sports package and charge more money for it. The NFL wants it added to the Basic package at no more expense to the cable customers.

What don't you get.

 

[theogt]

I believe the answer to this question will be found when you consider the fact that some cable companies chose to carry the NFLN with no question while others quibble over fine details at the expense of their subscribers. I think this division easily clarifies which cable companies care most about their subscribers and which are in it for themselves.

Newsflash: Every corporation is in it for themselves. Some appear to care about the customer only because that earns them more money.

 

[BigDFan5]

Basically it boils down to the NFL wanting ~$140 MM and the cable companies wanting to pay ~$115 MM. The cable companies won't mind if it's placed on a basic level as long as the contract price is adjusted.

If this were one company it'd be a lot more reasonable to blame the cable company. I just find it very interesting that SO MANY companies are having problems negotiating with the NFL. For some reason that leads me to suspect the NFL.

but sooo many more had no problems at all so if more companies had no problem than companies that do have a problem how can you blame the NFL?

As for 140 mill VS 115 mill have a link?

 

[sjordan6]

Cable companies all have the exact same business model. Only the names change.

IMO, the cable companies are the bullies here, and not the NFL.

I really dont think so. The facts are that the NFL wants to charge them about $140 million a year and their network is not in the top 25 of cable programs and networks but yet they want to be paid like one.

The cable companies are offering to allow customers to pay an extra $10 a month as part of their sports package (outdoor channel, nba, golf, fox sports...) that will allow those who want it to pay for it. Sure it may be paid programming but everyone doesnt have to pay for it.

The NFL will still get paid if they went this route but not as much and I think the NFL will blink first because as long as you have ESPN to show the highlights then I think people will make adjustments for a those couple of games that involve their favorite team. Eventually people will switch if it means that much.

 

[theogt]

Because they want to add it to a top tear sports package and charge more money for it. The NFL wants it added to the Basic package at no more expense to the cable customers.

What don't you get.

The cable company would be fine with adding it to a basic package as long as the contract price is reduced. The NFL refuses. What don't you get?

 

[Jammer]

Not an assumption, its true. Look at the offerings for Comcast, TWC, Cox, and Charter. They are all the exact same. The rates for basic cable are all within a few bucks of each other, and HS internet is within several dollars of each other.

The tiers are basically laid out the same and the equipment is the same.

Ever noticed that they still do not compete against each other in the same market?

I have the choice of three cable companies in my market, and believe me, they fight over my dollars like I'm the last man with a dollar. I think if it was in their best interest one of them would offer the NFL network just to have a leg up on their competition, but they don't.

 

[BigDFan5]

The cable company would be fine with adding it to a basic package as long as the contract price is reduced. The NFL refuses. What don't you get?

Time warners own site disagrees with you, they dont want to add it to basic at all, they want to put it on a sports tier and charge people 10 bucks a month for it

 

[theogt]

but sooo many more had no problems at all so if more companies had no problem than companies that do have a problem how can you blame the NFL?

As for 140 mill VS 115 mill have a link?

Ok. Say there are 20 companies negotiating with ABC company. Say 10 of those companies negotiate a deal with ABC and 10 of those companies don't. Who is at fault?

Both sides are at fault, arguably, but it just seems to me like ABC company shoulders much of the blame.

As for the link, just do a little research on this issue. You won't find exact numbers, but I was simplifying the issue a little.

 

[theogt]

Time warners own site disagrees with you, they dont want to add it to basic at all, they want to put it on a sports tier and charge people 10 bucks a month for it

Money if fungible in case you weren't aware.

 

[Bleu Star]

Newsflash: Every corporation is in it for themselves. Some appear to care about the customer only because that earns them more money.

In the end though who's happy?

When you can answer this question then I will find more understanding in the argument. Some cable companies accepted the NFLN without an argument. Their subscribers immediately benefited. Others argue over fine details while their subscribers visit boards like this pissed off at the world because they have to make special arrangements to see their beloved Cowboys.

I had Mediacom in my house for 5 years. I've never been happier since switching to DirecTV for my viewing pleasure and Bellsouth DSL for my internet surfing pleasure a year ago. It's all about choice. I made one that I have never been happier with. Mediacom happens to be one of those companies that currently doesn't carry NFLN. I laugh at that. I have a couple of buddies that will be at my place watching the game on the 60" in HD tonight because their cable company is too cheap to make it happen. Some cable companies make moves while others remain in traction.

 

[Concord]

The cable company would be fine with adding it to a basic package as long as the contract price is reduced. The NFL refuses. What don't you get?

The NFL has all the leverage here. They are not going to take less money.

Funny how my DirecTV bill didn't go up when the NFL Network was added but it will on Cable.

They should take a little less profit and make their customers happy. They might even get more customers from satellite if they had it.

 

[Bleu Star]

Time warners own site disagrees with you, they dont want to add it to basic at all, they want to put it on a sports tier and charge people 10 bucks a month for it

This further supports my argument. Some cable companies are thieves while others actually want to provide the best service possible to their subscribers.

 

[Bleu Star]

Funny how my DirecTV bill didn't go up when the NFL Network was added but it will on Cable.

LOL... I find that extremely laughable too.

 

[BigDFan5]

Ok. Say there are 20 companies negotiating with ABC company. Say 10 of those companies negotiate a deal with ABC and 10 of those companies don't. Who is at fault?

Both sides are at fault, arguably, but it just seems to me like ABC company shoulders much of the blame.

As for the link, just do a little research on this issue. You won't find exact numbers, but I was simplifying the issue a little.

This isnt a 50/50 deal. Over 170 cable companies and both major sattelite provoders have a deal, only a handful are resisting. its more like 90% agree with the NFL 10% dont, now who is at fault?


As fot the numbers you tell me to do research and then say the numbers cant be found? I know the 137 million that Time warner is saying they are being asked to pay, now where can I find the 115 million?

 

[BigDFan5]

Money if fungible in case you weren't aware.

which has absolutely nothing to do with you posting bad information

 

[Rack]

:fight: :clubbed: :spanking: :gassy1: :eyepoke: