Concord
Mr. Buckeye
- Messages
- 12,825
- Reaction score
- 119
Bleu Star;1235564 said:LOL... I find that extremely laughable too.
This guy MUST have some kind of stake in a Cable company.:
Bleu Star;1235564 said:LOL... I find that extremely laughable too.
ConcordCowboy;1235572 said:This guy MUST have some kind of stake in a Cable company.:
Bingo! They're being obstinate because they can.ConcordCowboy;1235561 said:The NFL has all the leverage here. They are not going to take less money.
At least that's what you think. You have absolutely no way of proving this. In fact, I would assume that you're wrong.Funny how my DirecTV bill didn't go up when the NFL Network was added but it will on Cable.
Same could be said for the NFL.They should take a little less profit and make their customers happy.
I said I simplified it a bit. Did you see that "~" in front of the numbers on my post? That means approximately. Sheesh, some people need to learn to read.BigDFan5;1235565 said: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?
theogt;1235574 said:[/B]Bingo! They're being obstinate because they can.
At least that's what you think. You have absolutely no way of proving this. In fact, I would assume that you're wrong.
Same could be said for the NFL.
I don't work for a cable company, no. If I had the choice right now, I would have DirecTV. Unfortunately I don't have the choice.Bleu Star;1235573 said:Yeah. He probably works for Mediacom.
theogt;1235583 said:I don't work for a cable company, no. If I had the choice right now, I would have DirecTV. Unfortunately I don't have the choice.
No, that does not prove that adding the NFL channel changed its rates. Surely you can see this.ConcordCowboy;1235582 said:Lets see. My bill is the same as the day NFL network was added. I think that proves it.
theogt;1235583 said:I don't work for a cable company, no. If I had the choice right now, I would have DirecTV. Unfortunately I don't have the choice.
Yes, it is envy that has caused me to use logical arguments in this discussion. I've yet to see you make a single logical argument one way or the other. I guess I'm just supposed to accept your word as truth?ConcordCowboy;1235587 said:[/b]
Well finally we have come to the problem...Envy!
BigDFan5;1235588 said:• Over 170 cable companies as well as Dish Network and DIRECTV offer NFL Network without charging extra for it. If they can carry the channel and do not pass along costs, your cable provider can too.
theogt;1235577 said:I said I simplified it a bit. Did you see that "~" in front of the numbers on my post? That means approximately. Sheesh, some people need to learn to read.
I'm sorry, I think you're completely misunderstanding basic business concepts.Bleu Star;1235591 said:Well I am sorry you don't have the choice available to you. That sucks. However, I think you're seeing the wrong picture. I cannot reiterate enough how important it is to keep your subscribers happy when you deliver a medium to them. A majority of cable companies clearly understand that and as a result their subscribers will enjoy the came in the comfort of their own homes tonight.
I have no sympathy for those agenda driven cable companies that are rising to the top of the pile and showing their true colors right now. The thieves are in clear view.
Learn. To. Read.BigDFan5;1235595 said:This isn 't hard bro, find me a link to ~115 million is what the cable companies will agree to put it on basic cable. Is that better? You threw the number out I am just looking for verification
theogt;1235602 said:Learn. To. Read.
theogt;1235598 said:I'm sorry, I think you're completely misunderstanding basic business concepts.
I thought I read a post in here about how their cable companies offered the NFL Network for free, but the games were extra or not available?BigDFan5;1235588 said:• This is why we have resisted. It is not in your best interest. And remember, over 170 cable companies offer NFL Network without charging their customers extra for it. If they can carry the channel and not pass along costs, yours can too.
theogt;1235589 said:No, that does not prove that adding the NFL channel changed its rates. Surely you can see this.
For example, the increased costs may have actually forced your satellite provider to cut other services, or even worse, lay off employees to reduce costs.
Furthermore, you may have been under contract when the change went into place. Your rates may not rise until your next contract. Or the rates may have increased prior to you joining for various reasons.
In the end, you have absolutely NO WAY of proving that adding the NFL channel didn't affect prices.
Jammer;1235610 said:I thought I read a post in here about how their cable companies offered the NFL Network for free, but the games were extra or not available?