Interseptopus
Footballguy
It's not offered yet, but there's been a push for it. Go here and tell the NFL what you really think!
http://www.nflgetreal.com/
http://www.nflgetreal.com/
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
NFL Network on Cable TV (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Interseptopus
- Start date
I think this is lose-lose for the fans. On the one hand, no way do I think the NFL network has earned the right to up its fees from $.90 per subscriber all the way to $3 per subscriber. I think that just screws over all of the people who don't give a rat's hindquarters about football who will no doubt see rate increases for something that they don't even want. On the other hand, no way in hell do I want the NFL network put into a "sports package", where I'll undoubtedly have to pay $15 a month just so I can have access to a handful of football games- especially when the only channel I'd be interested in only has fees of $3 a month.The solution here is obviously a la carte cable, where customers get to pick and choose which channels they want to pay for, but Time Warner would never agree to that, because it would cost them a ton of revenue. Since they refuse to offer a la carte cable because it will cost them revenue, I think they deserve to eat the $3 per subscriber fees for the NFL network on this. That $3 per subscriber is a heck of a lot less lost revenue than they'd face if they offered a la carte. In the end, the NFL Network is happy because they get their exorbitant fees, Times Warner is happy because they get to continue charging me for channels like Oxygen and Lifetime that I'll never ever EVER watch, and I'm happy because I get my NFL games without having to pay any more for them this year than I had to last year.
videoguy505
Footballguy
Ala Carte would rock. I believe there is pending congressional legislation to grease the wheels.
I'm an Adelphia customer being switched over to TWC, my local lineup says NFL Network is part of Digital Basic Cable (ch. 180).
What's the issue here? Is TW threatening to pull it because they don't want to charge more for it? Does the NFL want the Net only on dish? Not being a digital cable subscriber (yet), I haven't been following, could someone please boil down the argument here in a brief summary?
I'm an Adelphia customer being switched over to TWC, my local lineup says NFL Network is part of Digital Basic Cable (ch. 180).
What's the issue here? Is TW threatening to pull it because they don't want to charge more for it? Does the NFL want the Net only on dish? Not being a digital cable subscriber (yet), I haven't been following, could someone please boil down the argument here in a brief summary?
The Mollusk
Footballguy
Have to put pressure on both sides to move things along here. I called both sides to complain as soon as Time Warner removed NFL Network on 8/1 (without notice) after taking over for Adelphia in Santa Monica. Hard to believe that both the NFL and Time Warner would risk angering the LA market (Time Warner losing subscribers to DirecTV and the NFL missing out on reaching the market it so wants to rejoin). See http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl...ines-sports-nfl Anyway, the previous post only links only to the Time Warner side (basically a link to complain that the NFL is too greedy). Whatever -- Time Warner is not leading the rebirth of populism. This is straight dollars and cents, so Time Warner should also be pressured to make a meeting in the middle with which everyone can live.
Anyway, my point is that in addition to calling the NFL Network, anyone affected should also call Time Warner. See this link for the number to call in your area: http://nfl.viewerlink.tv/
Anyway, my point is that in addition to calling the NFL Network, anyone affected should also call Time Warner. See this link for the number to call in your area: http://nfl.viewerlink.tv/
Rather than waste my time typing out all the ins and outs, here's a great link that spells it all out better than I could, anyway.
The Mollusk
Footballguy
First, the NFL certainly wants the NFL Network in as many cable and satellite homes as possible, so there's no discrimination in favor of this dish over cable by the NFL. This is simply a business dispute that is screwing customers (many of whom, like myself, would gladly pay a separate fee for the NFL Network). Anyway, the Time Warner-NFL Network battle is about negotiation of the carriage fee for the NFL Network. Because the NFL Network is now carrying live regular season games, the NFL raised the carriage fee for the channel and apparently negotiated deals with several cable companies with this increased fee. Time Warner, however, balked at the increased fee and refused to carry it and/or dropped the channel. When Time Warner took over for Adelphia and Comcast (I can only speak to the LA market) they removed the NFL Network from the channel lineup without notice. Through legal action, the NFL obtained an order from the Federal Communications Commission requiring Time Warner to restore the NFL Network because it failed to give notice of the removal.
From personal experience, I can tell you that when I turned to the NFL Network on 8/1 (the first day Time Warner took over for Adelphia here in Santa Monica) I was greeted by a graphic welcoming me to Time Warner Cable, with no explanation of where the NFL Network went and why it was gone. Within 3 days it was restored because the NFL won its appeal to the FCC. The restoration, however, is short lived because there is still no agreement between Time Warner and the NFL. So, both sides should be pressured to reach a resolution.
Bottom line -- it may say that NFL Network is channel 180 on your system, but that channel will likely disappear in the near future if there is no agreement.
videoguy505
Footballguy
Thanks Mollusk.
I'm an analog subscriber, been avoiding the digital switchover as long as I could. I hate digital, but my love for the NFL would be enough to push me to the dark side... I think I'll wait for the situation to resolve before deciding to upgrade.
I'm an analog subscriber, been avoiding the digital switchover as long as I could. I hate digital, but my love for the NFL would be enough to push me to the dark side... I think I'll wait for the situation to resolve before deciding to upgrade.
Urinal Mint
Footballguy
All cable channels should be a la carte like big dish satellite channels were about a decade ago. You could pick a package, or even better, subscribe on a channel-by-channel basis and tailor your channel lineup to suit.
Why TV hasn't remained this way, I don't know.
Why TV hasn't remained this way, I don't know.
Urinal Mint
Footballguy
What I find funny is that TW balks at the NFL's exhorbitant fee for their channel, but acts like offering a basic cable package at $60/mo isn't exhorbitant itself. 
videoguy505
Footballguy
Sure. Care to tell me where I can get the dynamite to blow up the building in between my apartment and the DTV satellite?DirecTV is only available to 70% of the population in the US. Cable is available to everyone.KISS - as we say in sales; KISS......... Get DirecTV
Once upon a time broadband internet was only available in certain areas.Sure. Care to tell me where I can get the dynamite to blow up the building in between my apartment and the DTV satellite?DirecTV is only available to 70% of the population in the US. Cable is available to everyone.KISS - as we say in sales; KISS......... Get DirecTV
videoguy505
Footballguy
Once upon a time broadband internet was only available in certain areas.Sure. Care to tell me where I can get the dynamite to blow up the building in between my apartment and the DTV satellite?DirecTV is only available to 70% of the population in the US. Cable is available to everyone.KISS - as we say in sales; KISS......... Get DirecTV
The reason DTV is only available to 70% of the pop. is that 30% of the people in the US live where they can't get a direct line view of the satellite. Either, like me, in apartment buildings that face the wrong way, or on the north side of mountains or hills... stuff like that.
Are you saying there's a point in the future where DTV will move the earth? Or just it's rotation so we can have non-equatorial geosynchronous orbits?
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
Not so. Lots of rural & semi-rural areas don't have cable available. I live about 3 miles from Hanover, PA & cable's not an option. My brother lives less than 5 miles from Annapolis, MD & doesn't have cable as an option. Both of these areas have tons of houses being built & everyone's putting up dishes.
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Once upon a time broadband internet was only available in certain areas.Sure. Care to tell me where I can get the dynamite to blow up the building in between my apartment and the DTV satellite?DirecTV is only available to 70% of the population in the US. Cable is available to everyone.KISS - as we say in sales; KISS......... Get DirecTV
The reason DTV is only available to 70% of the pop. is that 30% of the people in the US live where they can't get a direct line view of the satellite. Either, like me, in apartment buildings that face the wrong way, or on the north side of mountains or hills... stuff like that.
Are you saying there's a point in the future where DTV will move the earth? Or just it's rotation so we can have non-equatorial geosynchronous orbits?
Rovers
Footballguy
I'm in NY, Long Island specifically, and just went with Verizon's (the local telephone Co) FiOS plan. This is a fiber optics system. Blazing internet speed, phone service, HDTV and a TIVO type unit, NFL Network and a ton more channels.... and am saving $45 a month in the process. They will never get MSG, (Knicks Rangers) because that is owned by the Dolans, the owners of Cablevision. Meh, I could care less. They carry the Mets channel, and I expect the YES network (Yankees and Nets) shortly.
I'm thrilled with it so far (Day 3). With Cablevision, the HDTV signal would sometomes break up, intermittent adio level problems, and internet speed that would be slower than dial up when people in the area were doing a lot of heavy data downloads. No such issue with fiber optics.
I'm thrilled with it so far (Day 3). With Cablevision, the HDTV signal would sometomes break up, intermittent adio level problems, and internet speed that would be slower than dial up when people in the area were doing a lot of heavy data downloads. No such issue with fiber optics.
Urinal Mint
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
$$$Why would a cable company let you pay $30 for the channels that you want when they they know you're perfectly willing to pay $60 for the channels that you don't?
wannabee
Footballguy
plus, most of the people would choose similar enough channels that the cable companies would lose money. The channels that "no one wants" are the same ones that the cable companies pay the least for. It is a cycle built on vieworship. The ones watched the most cost the most.
videoguy505
Footballguy
You are correct, I did take a bit of license, I'm aware distance from the trunk is a factor in some areas. However, given enough time and money, cable would be an option at some point... there's no physical barrier preventing a cable company from laying a three mile cable from your house to the closest neighbor with cable, obviously if you can drive to your house there's no reason a coax can't follow the same path. It's just cost prohibitive at this point. All I meant was there is a large chunk of the population that would require a change in the laws of physics in order to receive the satellite signal, or would have to move to watch TV. We'd have to demolish every apartment building in the country and rebuild them 3 stories tall with only with southern facing rooms, and then level every mountain, to achieve the percentage of DTV availablity to rival cable.
