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!
Great post. Seriously, you said everything I was going t
ne thing that cable companies have typically struggled with is appearing as if they truly appreciate their customers and value them as anything other than revenue streams, so my guess is that they're probably losing the PR war here. 
I did the same thing in August with Charter and could not be happier. That's what's great about having a choice and I choose not to pay the cable companies another cent of my hard earned money. I do feel bad for those of you living in apartments or other locations where cable is your only option.
You know what, how about everyone who has cable sends me 70 cents for me to create a cable station where I dance in a dress all day. I'll be happy to do it for that money, and since it's only 70 cents you should be happy to pay it even though you won't watch that channel!Going by your logic everyone should be paying to subsidize you watching the NFL. Note that up until now no one had to pay that 70 cents at all because the NFL games are on network television. This is just a move by the NFL to monopolize the market even more and drain more money from you. But #### it, it's the cable companies that are wrong and the NFL should be allowed to squeeze people as much as possible because the people who are being squeezed are too busy drooling into a bag of potato chips to even realize they are being screwed.Both but cable companies have said carrying it would cost an extra 70 cents per subscriber.They could cut a useless channel or raise prices 70 cents but have decided to screw customers instead.Never for a second do i regret switching to satellite.
The NFL is negotiating as a monopoly, it's not like the cable companies can go to another provider of professional football. That's why a little thing called congress is looking into this whole thing as possible anti-trust.I find it humorous people will defend monopolistic practices like this by say "lol it's the way the economy works lol". If we actually operated under true capitalism there would be only be one company in this country, and everyone would work for it for whatever it deemed appropriate to pay you. That's why we have law for things like this, and that's why you shouldn't just sit back and say "ok NFL I'll be happy to bend over and take whatever you give me".I'm not saying that the cable companies are the pinnacle of virtue, but to say they should bend over for the NFL because the NFL wants to negotiate from a monopolistic position is just ######ed.
And I would point out that here in Austin Time Warner operates a monopoly. Our great forward thinking city council accepted an offer from Time Warner that guarantees them that they are free from ANY competition from another cable company in Austin. And it matters not one whit whether it is about the NFL Network, their extremely crappy service or anything else, they are protected from any other cable company coming into town and providing them with any competition at all. Bless the satellite companies for providing us an alternative to another huge coporate conglomerate monopoly, our "leaders" sure as heck won't do it.As I said before, I blame both sides. Just don't expect me to shed any tears over Time Warner's supposed plight.
Do you feel this way about iTunes?
I see your point, but it could be strongly argued that iTunes doesn't fleece consumers, doesn't treat them simply as revenue streams (of course this is just a perception), and provides value to both the customer (cheap, a la carte downloads) and the content providers (more people paying instead of downloading illegally).
What's sad is your point more easily applies to cable companies then the NFL, in my opinion. I think the cable companies have long gotten fat on the fact that people do not have a choice. Now that a viable model has developed as competition (satellite) that has a real accessibility, the cable company is not willing to do what's important to keep customers. The point that there is only one NFL is somewhat irrelevant. Granting that the NFL is the only football game in town (which it isn't), there is "only one" / a monopoly on a large number of products people like and enjoy, including other sports. That is less a consumer problem and more a long-tail distributor problem.I see your point, but it could be strongly argued that iTunes doesn't fleece consumers, doesn't treat them simply as revenue streams (of course this is just a perception), and provides value to both the customer (cheap, a la carte downloads) and the content providers (more people paying instead of downloading illegally).
I wasn't aware Apple operates a monopoly on digital music.
Good points. I think for me it's harder to back anyone in this case because the way they're handling it isn't good for me, the consumer, and that's what I'm most interested in.Neither party is coming off very well here the longer it goes on. It is definitely clear that the NFL is trying to get as many new DirecTV customers as possible, obviously for new Sunday Ticket purchasers ....What's sad is your point more easily applies to cable companies then the NFL, in my opinion. I think the cable companies have long gotten fat on the fact that people do not have a choice. Now that a viable model has developed as competition (satellite) that has a real accessibility, the cable company is not willing to do what's important to keep customers. The point that there is only one NFL is somewhat irrelevant. Granting that the NFL is the only football game in town (which it isn't), there is "only one" / a monopoly on a large number of products people like and enjoy, including other sports. That is less a consumer problem and more a long-tail distributor problem.I see your point, but it could be strongly argued that iTunes doesn't fleece consumers, doesn't treat them simply as revenue streams (of course this is just a perception), and provides value to both the customer (cheap, a la carte downloads) and the content providers (more people paying instead of downloading illegally).
Agreed. But people/products/companies SHOULD have the right to decide how they are distributed. Howard Stern is available one way and one way only (discounting piracy). If you want to hear Stern, you pay the price. The main reason I'm not so down on the NFL is that if I don't have the NFL Network, that doesn't cut me off from the football universe. There are places I can go to watch the NFL Network. I can listen to games on the radio/net. I can view gamecasts on the net. And I can watch the other games on other channels.Good points. I think for me it's harder to back anyone in this case because the way they're handling it isn't good for me, the consumer, and that's what I'm most interested in.Neither party is coming off very well here the longer it goes on. It is definitely clear that the NFL is trying to get as many new DirecTV customers as possible, obviously for new Sunday Ticket purchasers ....What's sad is your point more easily applies to cable companies then the NFL, in my opinion. I think the cable companies have long gotten fat on the fact that people do not have a choice. Now that a viable model has developed as competition (satellite) that has a real accessibility, the cable company is not willing to do what's important to keep customers. The point that there is only one NFL is somewhat irrelevant. Granting that the NFL is the only football game in town (which it isn't), there is "only one" / a monopoly on a large number of products people like and enjoy, including other sports. That is less a consumer problem and more a long-tail distributor problem.I see your point, but it could be strongly argued that iTunes doesn't fleece consumers, doesn't treat them simply as revenue streams (of course this is just a perception), and provides value to both the customer (cheap, a la carte downloads) and the content providers (more people paying instead of downloading illegally).
Yes, except their goal is to put all the games on their channel.I'll sum up this whole thing simply. Right now we get NFL games on network television, and the costs are deferred to advertisers. If everything goes to NFLN we will end up paying for the games either by purchasing the channel or by having the costs pushed to us via our cable bill. There will still be advertising we have to watch, so the increased price we pay comes with no additional value.This is why monopolies are bad, because they can increase our costs like this without giving us anything to justify the increase other than "we own it all". If you are ok with paying more without getting more, please support the NFL. Otherwise we really should be opposing them switching the games over to their own overpriced network.Agreed. But people/products/companies SHOULD have the right to decide how they are distributed. Howard Stern is available one way and one way only (discounting piracy). If you want to hear Stern, you pay the price. The main reason I'm not so down on the NFL is that if I don't have the NFL Network, that doesn't cut me off from the football universe. There are places I can go to watch the NFL Network. I can listen to games on the radio/net. I can view gamecasts on the net. And I can watch the other games on other channels.Good points. I think for me it's harder to back anyone in this case because the way they're handling it isn't good for me, the consumer, and that's what I'm most interested in.Neither party is coming off very well here the longer it goes on. It is definitely clear that the NFL is trying to get as many new DirecTV customers as possible, obviously for new Sunday Ticket purchasers ....What's sad is your point more easily applies to cable companies then the NFL, in my opinion. I think the cable companies have long gotten fat on the fact that people do not have a choice. Now that a viable model has developed as competition (satellite) that has a real accessibility, the cable company is not willing to do what's important to keep customers. The point that there is only one NFL is somewhat irrelevant. Granting that the NFL is the only football game in town (which it isn't), there is "only one" / a monopoly on a large number of products people like and enjoy, including other sports. That is less a consumer problem and more a long-tail distributor problem.I see your point, but it could be strongly argued that iTunes doesn't fleece consumers, doesn't treat them simply as revenue streams (of course this is just a perception), and provides value to both the customer (cheap, a la carte downloads) and the content providers (more people paying instead of downloading illegally).
Network television comes with a cost too in terms of cable subscription. As does cable television. I see your point, but if my TV antenna picked up the games with a clear signal, it would make more sense. As it is, to have a clear view of the NFL, I have to front some of the money.Yes, except their goal is to put all the games on their channel.I'll sum up this whole thing simply. Right now we get NFL games on network television, and the costs are deferred to advertisers. If everything goes to NFLN we will end up paying for the games either by purchasing the channel or by having the costs pushed to us via our cable bill. There will still be advertising we have to watch, so the increased price we pay comes with no additional value.This is why monopolies are bad, because they can increase our costs like this without giving us anything to justify the increase other than "we own it all". If you are ok with paying more without getting more, please support the NFL. Otherwise we really should be opposing them switching the games over to their own overpriced network.Agreed. But people/products/companies SHOULD have the right to decide how they are distributed. Howard Stern is available one way and one way only (discounting piracy). If you want to hear Stern, you pay the price. The main reason I'm not so down on the NFL is that if I don't have the NFL Network, that doesn't cut me off from the football universe. There are places I can go to watch the NFL Network. I can listen to games on the radio/net. I can view gamecasts on the net. And I can watch the other games on other channels.Good points. I think for me it's harder to back anyone in this case because the way they're handling it isn't good for me, the consumer, and that's what I'm most interested in.Neither party is coming off very well here the longer it goes on. It is definitely clear that the NFL is trying to get as many new DirecTV customers as possible, obviously for new Sunday Ticket purchasers ....What's sad is your point more easily applies to cable companies then the NFL, in my opinion. I think the cable companies have long gotten fat on the fact that people do not have a choice. Now that a viable model has developed as competition (satellite) that has a real accessibility, the cable company is not willing to do what's important to keep customers. The point that there is only one NFL is somewhat irrelevant. Granting that the NFL is the only football game in town (which it isn't), there is "only one" / a monopoly on a large number of products people like and enjoy, including other sports. That is less a consumer problem and more a long-tail distributor problem.I see your point, but it could be strongly argued that iTunes doesn't fleece consumers, doesn't treat them simply as revenue streams (of course this is just a perception), and provides value to both the customer (cheap, a la carte downloads) and the content providers (more people paying instead of downloading illegally).
I did the opposite. Both to blame, but voted NFLN, because I think it is mainly NFLN. When we went through this a few years ago with the YES Network, the ultimate solution was to put it on the tier with the local/regional sports channels, but move up the level of service you needed to get that tier...it was available on basic family level and was moved to one that gives movies and some other things (not NBATV etc, though) So, alot of people lost access to channels they previously had in their package sor had to pay ore to keep) o Cablevision could make up what YES was charging...even if they don't watch YES.Mungo Burrows said:
There's another top-tier professional football league in existence?
TW and Cablevision would be dumb to allow it. Alot more people would be pissed about having something for a week and losing it than having to go to a sports bar to watch Rutgers
in a bowl game. Besides, if they take the offer then they have to set up a new channel number and everything for it. No way they do that.
Cablevision will only offer the Rutgers game. THat link is expired btw, but I did a searchhttp://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-n...p&type=lgns
I've got to disagree. TNTHD has been showing the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Gladiator lately. It's a pretty good channel.
So what if that is their goal? You have no inherent right to watch the NFL for free. If I own Comedy Central and I produce South Park, should I be forced to offer that content to any other provider anywhere at terms and conditions that I deem less than satisfactory? I don't really see any reason why the NFL should not be allowed to use its own content and offer it exclusively. In the long run, I'm not sure if this is a smart business move, but I don't know why they can't do it.
Or you have 6 TV's and your computer through cable.
I don't own a house but I have checked into DTV & Dish. Living in FL I am a little wary of satellite tv from a weather point of view. But in any case, both DTV & Dish want more $$$ than Bright House.
Anyone else?Your first point is spot on concerning the NFL.Not sure how many here have kids playing sports but weekday games are a pain to watch anyway. Especially end of week games that conflict with sporting events. Mondays usually just make it a mad rush from practice to the TV set and the table. Concerning the Cable companies. They seem to create new packages just to get more money. When I was on time warner we got the HD package which included all of the HD at the time. As soon as ESPNHD comes to market there all of the sudden a new HD premium package you have to get. This package included ESPNHD and two new HD channels. They did this because they knew they could get the premium for the channel. Cable companies=Bad business.
Don't know why you're confused. Both the cable companies and the NFLN are at fault and trying to be greedy, but the NFLN is "more" at fault and that's the poll result we see here. Not allowing the cable companies to add it to the Sports Tier is just stupid.Cable Companies. [ 48 ] [30.77%] NFL Network. [ 58 ] [37.18%] Both. [ 50 ] [32.05%] Total Votes: 156
They could cut a useless channel or raise prices 70 cents but have decided to screw customers instead.
