Good Article on NFLN vs. Cable Companies (1 Viewer)

[ConstruxBoy]

Link

CHANNEL, HIGH FEES NOT IN GAME PLAN

Cable stiff-arms NFL Network

PETER GRANT AND ADAM THOMPSON

Wall Street Journal

As football season approaches, the cable industry is gang-tackling a fledgling network created by the powerful National Football League.

Time Warner Cable Inc. and Cablevision Systems Corp. are refusing to carry the NFL Network, launched in 2003, on the league's terms. Charter Communications Inc., whose controlling shareholder owns the Seattle Seahawks, stopped carrying the network in late 2005 because of a contract dispute. Comcast Corp., the country's largest cable operator, yanked the NFL Network out of millions of homes after a bitter battle. The NFL tried to stop Comcast by suing, but lost. The case is now on appeal.

At the heart of the debate: How much pro football is enough for America's already robustly served TV fans? The NFL, long able to command top dollar, says viewers are still insatiable.

But after years of budgetary woes caused by the skyrocketing cost of football, cable executives say they -- and viewers -- have had enough. Die-hard football fans can now watch as many as 16 regular-season games a week via broadcast, cable and satellite operators.

Complaints about the cost of cable, driven in large part by the cost of sports, have been escalating. "Not all our customers are passionate sports fans," says Steve Burke, Comcast's chief operating officer. "And many of them are not interested in paying more" for football programming. In New York City, roughly 20 percent of an average customer's standard cable bill goes to sports channels, regardless of whether the customer watches them.

Cable executives say the NFL finally got tripped up by its arrogance.

"They believe no matter what they do, you have to have it," says Fred Dressler, who was Time Warner Cable's lead negotiator on programming before he retired late last year.

The network says it is currently available to 44 million homes, although Comcast says the figure is millions less than that; at least one team owner expected the number to be closer to 70 million.

It doesn't break the hearts of cable executives that the man quarterbacking the struggling NFL effort is Steve Bornstein, whom they largely hold responsible for the high cost of football. Prior to the NFL, Bornstein headed Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN unit and honed its strategy of paying the league large sums to broadcast football games -- and then charging cable companies massive fees to carry ESPN.

Bornstein insists demand for additional football programming is strong and the NFL Network is performing as expected. "To me the glass is half full," he says. Indeed, viewership of over-the-air television broadcasts of NFL games climbed every year between 2003 and 2006 and this year's Super Bowl, which aired on CBS, ranked as the third-most-watched program in U.S. TV history.

Cable's rebellion represents a rare setback for the NFL. Considered the gold standard of sports programming, the league now earns $3.7 billion in fees annually by selling games to the likes of ESPN, NBC and CBS. That's more than the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, Major League Baseball and NASCAR combined.

Skyrocketing fees have allowed team owners to pay football stars enormous salaries, like the $98 million the Indianapolis Colts are reportedly paying quarterback Peyton Manning over seven years.

The NFL's recent problems are emboldening cable operators in their dealings with the proliferation of other sports networks. For example, most large operators are arguing against including the Big Ten Network in their most popular digital packages. A new channel being launched this month, the Big Ten Network is a venture of Fox Cable Networks and the Big Ten Conference, a collegiate-sports association.

ESPN's strategy of paying top dollar for football has been hugely profitable for the network -- and a major headache for cable and satellite operators. Today, cable companies pay ESPN more than $3 a month for every household that gets the signal, compared with 30 to 50 cents for popular cable networks like CNN and MTV.

Bornstein's success at ESPN propelled him higher at Disney. Bornstein was named president and chief executive of the NFL Network in early 2003. But he ran into problems with cable companies, which have long been annoyed with the NFL for driving up the cost of ESPN and for Sunday Ticket -- a premium satellite service that allows DirecTV subscribers to watch up to 14 games every Sunday. Executives at some cable companies griped that the NFL's Network's price of 15 to 20 cents a subscriber was too much for a network then focused on second-tier programming like preseason games, highlights and historic footage.

From Day 1, Time Warner and Cablevision played it tough, scoffing at Bornstein's warnings that they would lose subscribers to satellite TV if they didn't carry the NFL Network.

That said, some cable companies are playing both sides of the issue. Many of the operators, Comcast included, have invested in their own sports networks that apply the same strategy used by ESPN and the NFL.

The NFL Network regularly got top Nielsen ratings in its time slot among cable networks when it aired regular-season games last year. But viewership of those games still falls far short of Monday Night Football, the other nationally televised game on a cable network. Also, the NFL Network usually doesn't crack the top-40 cable-network shows of the week during the offseason.

NFL Network officials insist that placing the channel on a sports tier -- an extra-cost package for cable subscribers -- is out of the question.

Bornstein says the NFL Network has helped cable, satellite and telephone companies gain customers while some "holdout" cable companies have lost them. This shows, he says, that Time Warner and Comcast's rivals "made the right choice by partnering with us -- America's most popular sport."

Panthers on NFL Network

The Panthers-Cowboys game -- scheduled for Dec. 22 at Bank of America Stadium -- is one of eight exclusive prime-time broadcasts this season by the NFL Network, which is unavailable on Carolinas cable systems.

The NFL's exclusivity agreement will allow one local station an over-the-air broadcast of the game, if the game sells out. The game is a sellout, according the Panthers' Web site. But the rest of the region will be blacked out, except for fans with a satellite system like Dish Network or DirecTV.

Among other late-season NFL Network games: Indianapolis at Atlanta, Thanksgiving Day; Green Bay at Dallas, Nov. 29; Chicago at Washington, Dec. 6.

________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

Pretty even-handed article. I bolded 3 interesting sections to me.

In NYC 20% of the standard cable bill is for sports? That seems high to me.

ESPN gets $3 a month per subscriber versus $.50 or so for CNN?? That's a much higher difference than I thought.

Although it's not a direct quote, I find it sad that NFLN officials say that a sports tier is out of the question. They don't seem to be very open minded.

I know that most people on this site are huge football fans and on the NFLN's side, but I can really support the cable companies if this article is accurate.

 

[Gottabesweet]

I wish I was able to purchase it!

I hate Time Warner

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

NY has:

ESPN

ESPN 2

ESPN Classic

Versus

FSNY

MSG Network

YES Network

Sportsnet(Mets network)

And I believe the Metro channel may still be on cablevision systems, which basically became MSG II

I know YES is at least 2 bucks a month, figure the others are in the 1-1.50 range, its certainly concievible

 

[ConstruxBoy]

NY has:ESPNESPN 2ESPN ClassicVersusFSNYMSG NetworkYES NetworkSportsnet(Mets network)And I believe the Metro channel may still be on cablevision systems, which basically became MSG III know YES is at least 2 bucks a month, figure the others are in the 1-1.50 range, its certainly concievible

Wow. Well, I guess that have a ton of local teams.

 

[videoguy505]

Among other late-season NFL Network games: Indianapolis at Atlanta, Thanksgiving Day; Green Bay at Dallas, Nov. 29; Chicago at Washington, Dec. 6.

Nice to see the NFLN kept all the good games for themselves Although Indy/Atl would have been slightly interesting if Vick was playing.

 

[3C's]

I wish I could reduce my Directv bill by getting rid of like MTV

 

[videoguy505]

I wish I could reduce my Directv bill by getting rid of like MTV

Call your congressman. I believe "a la carte" programming is still being debated.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

With the technological know-how we have available to us, why are we not using a pay-per-channel system?

Give me a list of channels, how much they cost, and let me customize my cable channels. It doesn't need to be the way it is now.

 

[56]

Interesting read, though I wish the author gave more space than a throw away sentence to the hypocrisy that cable companies employ regarding self owned sports networks. Cablevision for example owns the MSG network. For decades they have been ruthless in their efforts to keep MSG on a basic tier of any other cable company wanting it.

How exactly is the NFL Network insisting on broadcast basic any different than what Cablevision has done with it's own product? The answer is that it's not different at all, and it is a shame that articles like these never seem to touch on that more.

Also the article points out that ESPN charges cable companies 3 bucks per subscriber while CNN only charges 50 cents, but fails to mention that buying local commercial time on ESPN costs way more than what it costs to advertise on a CNN, MTV, Lifetime and every other basic cable network.

 

[bjabrad]

I didn't realize that NFLN won't allow the cable companies to place it on the higher priced sports channel pricing tier but I completely understand why NFLN doesn't want to be there. Cable customers think it's unfair that they don't get access to NFLN and complain that they would pay extra for the channel but NFLN wants a lot more viewers than will take the time to call up the cable company and upgrade their channel lineup. NFLN wants every cable subscriber so that they can sell ad space at higher levels of revenue and they know that they will get the added bump of the casual fan that will get sucked into liking NFLN and be able to bump ad revenue again. NFLN can grow faster and make money faster if they can stay on the basic cable tier.

So why doesn't NFLN lower their price to the cable companies and try to make most of their money from ad revenue instead of from the cable companies? After they get enough viewers that can't live without it they can raise their rates to the cable companies just like ESPN did and customers will be pissed off if they have to pay extra for it since it's rolled into the basic package at competitors like DirecTV.

 

[bentley]

I'm surprised that this is news to some, but I'm glad to see the word is getting out more. I love football as much as the next guy, but the NFL is being completely unreasonable. It's not often I find myself on the side of Time Warner in a debate, but I'm squarely there on this one. I guess I'll "have to" head to the bar to watch a couple late season Cowboys games again this year.

 

[Ron the Don]

The NFL is going to screw the league up by being greedy. Howc an you grow a fan base for a team that does not sell out if local games are bloacked out? Kids have so much else to do, it'll be hard for them to grow an affinty for a team.

Given how they try to poach good games so people can't watch them and then put pressure on the cable comapanies, that Indy - Atlanta game isn't look like such a good choice now, is it?

EDIT: In general, I have to say, screw the cable companies. They, along with phone companies and airlines, are right up there as companies that hate their customers and look to screw them every chance they get.

 

[cantrell]

Thank goodness for DishNetwork.

 

[shadow2k]

I didn't realize that NFLN won't allow the cable companies to place it on the higher priced sports channel pricing tier but I completely understand why NFLN doesn't want to be there. Cable customers think it's unfair that they don't get access to NFLN and complain that they would pay extra for the channel but NFLN wants a lot more viewers than will take the time to call up the cable company and upgrade their channel lineup. NFLN wants every cable subscriber so that they can sell ad space at higher levels of revenue and they know that they will get the added bump of the casual fan that will get sucked into liking NFLN and be able to bump ad revenue again. NFLN can grow faster and make money faster if they can stay on the basic cable tier. So why doesn't NFLN lower their price to the cable companies and try to make most of their money from ad revenue instead of from the cable companies? After they get enough viewers that can't live without it they can raise their rates to the cable companies just like ESPN did and customers will be pissed off if they have to pay extra for it since it's rolled into the basic package at competitors like DirecTV.

TW could just put it in their Digital Tier, like my local cable company that competes directly with them is doing. It's not just Basic vs Sports Tier, NFLN relaxed their policies this year. Of course, TW would never tell you that.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Is it not possible for cable customers to just get the channels they want? Like pay per channel.

There has got to be soooooo many stations that don't get watched by the majority of cable customers.

edit: just saw someone else said what I did.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I didn't realize that NFLN won't allow the cable companies to place it on the higher priced sports channel pricing tier but I completely understand why NFLN doesn't want to be there. Cable customers think it's unfair that they don't get access to NFLN and complain that they would pay extra for the channel but NFLN wants a lot more viewers than will take the time to call up the cable company and upgrade their channel lineup. NFLN wants every cable subscriber so that they can sell ad space at higher levels of revenue and they know that they will get the added bump of the casual fan that will get sucked into liking NFLN and be able to bump ad revenue again. NFLN can grow faster and make money faster if they can stay on the basic cable tier. So why doesn't NFLN lower their price to the cable companies and try to make most of their money from ad revenue instead of from the cable companies? After they get enough viewers that can't live without it they can raise their rates to the cable companies just like ESPN did and customers will be pissed off if they have to pay extra for it since it's rolled into the basic package at competitors like DirecTV.

I think you raise some great questions. It just seems like the NFL is being very inflexible here. Sure they want it on basic cable for more eyeballs for ad rates. And sure the cable companies want it on a sports tier so they make more money from people buying that tier. But at the end of the day, the cable companies are more 'right' because channels like these should be on tiers. They should be a shopping channel tier and a hispanic or alternate language tier and maybe a women's issues tier and a movie tier, etc. Put only the basic CNN, news, ESPN, weather, etc channels that a large majority of people watch on basic cable and have people pick baskets or tiers of other channels according to their interests. It's not as good as a pay per view per channel, or true ala carte. But I don't think that change is coming anytime soon.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm surprised that this is news to some, but I'm glad to see the word is getting out more. I love football as much as the next guy, but the NFL is being completely unreasonable. It's not often I find myself on the side of Time Warner in a debate, but I'm squarely there on this one. I guess I'll "have to" head to the bar to watch a couple late season Cowboys games again this year.

Glad to see I'm not the only one.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I didn't realize that NFLN won't allow the cable companies to place it on the higher priced sports channel pricing tier but I completely understand why NFLN doesn't want to be there. Cable customers think it's unfair that they don't get access to NFLN and complain that they would pay extra for the channel but NFLN wants a lot more viewers than will take the time to call up the cable company and upgrade their channel lineup. NFLN wants every cable subscriber so that they can sell ad space at higher levels of revenue and they know that they will get the added bump of the casual fan that will get sucked into liking NFLN and be able to bump ad revenue again. NFLN can grow faster and make money faster if they can stay on the basic cable tier.

So why doesn't NFLN lower their price to the cable companies and try to make most of their money from ad revenue instead of from the cable companies? After they get enough viewers that can't live without it they can raise their rates to the cable companies just like ESPN did and customers will be pissed off if they have to pay extra for it since it's rolled into the basic package at competitors like DirecTV.

TW could just put it in their Digital Tier, like my local cable company that competes directly with them is doing. It's not just Basic vs Sports Tier, NFLN relaxed their policies this year. Of course, TW would never tell you that.

Really? The article seems to say that NFLN is refusing it be put on any tier, or non basic package. What is the difference between a Digital Tier and a Sports Tier?

 

[OrangeCurtain]

The a la carte argument is a bunch of nonsense. Who here doesn't think the cable companies would just jack up the price of the channels they know everyone is going to get, while at the same time offering "packages" that purport to save you money on the new price of channels, but suspiciously looking like the old "packages."

a la carte programming would just give the cable companies more leverage and cause a lot of the channels you have now to go the way of the dodo. You may think that's a good thing, but more choice is always better than less, and this misleading initiative would REDUCE your choices.

Oh and Time Warner sucks for dropping NFL Network, and NFL Network sucks for trying to gouge. Jerks, the lot of them.

 

[OrangeCurtain]

Really? The article seems to say that NFLN is refusing it be put on any tier, or non basic package. What is the difference between a Digital Tier and a Sports Tier?

about $5 to $10 bucks a month, which NFL thinks too many subscribers may think is too expensive just to get the one channel they're after.

 

[cobalt_27]

The a la carte argument is a bunch of nonsense. Who here doesn't think the cable companies would just jack up the price of the channels they know everyone is going to get, while at the same time offering "packages" that purport to save you money on the new price of channels, but suspiciously looking like the old "packages."a la carte programming would just give the cable companies more leverage and cause a lot of the channels you have now to go the way of the dodo. You may think that's a good thing, but more choice is always better than less, and this misleading initiative would REDUCE your choices.Oh and Time Warner sucks for dropping NFL Network, and NFL Network sucks for trying to gouge. Jerks, the lot of them.

Sounds, generally, like you want to get a whole lot of something for a whole lot of nothing. Welcome to the real world.Supplyemand, people. Supplyemand. The reason the dodo became extinct because it was a dumb bird (oh, and one that couldn't fly). A lot that's in my current channel lineup would/should go the way of the dodo ala carte style. Unfortunately, I'm paying a huge hunk of change for channels that are crap and few ever watch.I'll pay for NFLN, ESPN, and locals. Rather do that than pay for channels 400-499 on DTV.

 

[Stabmug]

I wish I could reduce my Directv bill by getting rid of like MTV

Call your congressman. I believe "a la carte" programming is still being debated.

That's what is so funny about this. Cable does not want to force everyone to buy NFL Network, but they do not apply the same logic to any other channel.But they don't want the NFL Network to be as 'a la carte' as they are making it sound. They want everyone who wants the NFLN (and they know there are many) to buy the sports tier of junk noone is buying.Cable companies are not looking out for the customer here... they are looking out for themselves - always have.Don't be fooled - cable companies are not the good guys. They created this systemic mess, not the NFLN.

 

[Darth Cheney]

The a la carte argument is a bunch of nonsense. Who here doesn't think the cable companies would just jack up the price of the channels they know everyone is going to get, while at the same time offering "packages" that purport to save you money on the new price of channels, but suspiciously looking like the old "packages."a la carte programming would just give the cable companies more leverage and cause a lot of the channels you have now to go the way of the dodo. You may think that's a good thing, but more choice is always better than less, and this misleading initiative would REDUCE your choices.Oh and Time Warner sucks for dropping NFL Network, and NFL Network sucks for trying to gouge. Jerks, the lot of them.

Honestly though....and it's one of my biggest problems with the home television entitites..... do you need that many different yet similar channels? It seems there are 5 different Discovery channels, 5 different History channels, 5 different Lifetime channels etc. etc. In addition, it seems that most of the channels like TNT or VH1 run the same stuff over and over again. Seriously who needs Gladiator Fri-Sat-Sun nights at eight , eleven and three in the morning? How many times have I seen a I Love the Eighties marathon? The cable companies could better themselves with tighter channels and an ala carte system.

 

[LILB811]

As far as I know, there has long been a dispute between the NFL and cable companies about the fact that DirecTV has exclusive rights to all of the games. With Comcast, there is a sports package that can be purchased for every sport except the NFL. Comcast, and I assume other cable companies, are fed up with this and responded by charging people for NFLN. It's $5 a month to get the "Sports Tier" with Comcast. I'm not sure what NFLN was talking about, but their channel is already there, and you have to pay to get it.

Perhaps moving Monday Night Football to ESPN last year is costing the cable companies more to get that channel now and they aren't happy about it. While the cable companies would like to show every NFL game every week to their customers, this really has nothing to do with them. It has to do with making more money, which some other people pointed out.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Really? The article seems to say that NFLN is refusing it be put on any tier, or non basic package. What is the difference between a Digital Tier and a Sports Tier?

about $5 to $10 bucks a month, which NFL thinks too many subscribers may think is too expensive just to get the one channel they're after.

That's funny. In my area, all the digital tiers are only $2 a month. Link

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I wish I could reduce my Directv bill by getting rid of like MTV

Call your congressman. I believe "a la carte" programming is still being debated.

That's what is so funny about this. Cable does not want to force everyone to buy NFL Network, but they do not apply the same logic to any other channel.

Big Ten Channel down? Cable companies are making the same argument.

 

[Stabmug]

I wish I could reduce my Directv bill by getting rid of like MTV

Call your congressman. I believe "a la carte" programming is still being debated.

That's what is so funny about this. Cable does not want to force everyone to buy NFL Network, but they do not apply the same logic to any other channel.

Big Ten Channel down? Cable companies are making the same argument.

My bad, meant to say "every other channel". There arguement against not forcing every customer to pay for NFLN is the same arguement customer are making in pleading for 'a la carte' channel ordering.The cable company is using it as an arguement to gain public support - however, what they really want to do is place the NFLN into a sport tier that holds a bunch of sports channels I would otherwise not purchase.

They also do no force the samething onto their own sport channel investments (Comcast owns Comcast SportsNetworks and Versus - two sports stations).

Finally, cable companies have a habit of trying to protect their own interest by pleading to the public's passions when it suits their needs only - they do it in my area in trying to lobby against Verizon's FIOS service - saying it is only for the rich. I have it, I'm not rich. And now with this - trying to appeal to the masses in making it sound like they are for the customer - when in retrospect, they want to get more people subscribing to more channels through a sports tier.

I could see Big Ten Channel getting added to a sports tier package - easy.

BTW - Verizon Fios still has NFL Network as part of basic and I hope they keep it that way.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

I gotta be honest. I'm probably in the minority, but I've had my fill of these leagues and networks milking yet more of my hard earned paycheck. NFLN, The Big Ten Network, and ESPN will never see a dime of my money.

I've said it all along and I'll stick to this. I will turn on my radio. Big Ten Network has already pulled 11 of 18 Wisconsin Badger Basketball games this year. I used to be able to watch them on a local channel. There is no way I will be spending any additional money for those games. Again, I'll turn on the radio.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I wish I could reduce my Directv bill by getting rid of like MTV

Call your congressman. I believe "a la carte" programming is still being debated.

That's what is so funny about this. Cable does not want to force everyone to buy NFL Network, but they do not apply the same logic to any other channel.

Big Ten Channel down? Cable companies are making the same argument.

My bad, meant to say "every other channel". There arguement against not forcing every customer to pay for NFLN is the same arguement customer are making in pleading for 'a la carte' channel ordering.The cable company is using it as an arguement to gain public support - however, what they really want to do is place the NFLN into a sport tier that holds a bunch of sports channels I would otherwise not purchase.

They also do no force the samething onto their own sport channel investments (Comcast owns Comcast SportsNetworks and Versus - two sports stations).

Finally, cable companies have a habit of trying to protect their own interest by pleading to the public's passions when it suits their needs only - they do it in my area in trying to lobby against Verizon's FIOS service - saying it is only for the rich. I have it, I'm not rich. And now with this - trying to appeal to the masses in making it sound like they are for the customer - when in retrospect, they want to get more people subscribing to more channels through a sports tier.

I could see Big Ten Channel getting added to a sports tier package - easy.

BTW - Verizon Fios still has NFL Network as part of basic and I hope they keep it that way.

Two things here:Of course they are maximizing profit. They're a public company. And given that Time Warner is a large company and member of the S&P 500, I'm guessing that a whole lot of people here own it in their mutual funds. We are all much better off with TW maximizing their profit than we are with the NFL maximizing their profit.

Here's where you lose me: The Big Ten Channel should be on a sports tier, but NFL Network shouldn't? How does that work? A network that basically shows one level of one sport (with some college football mixed in) should be on basic cable over a channel that shows one level of many sports?? That just doesn't make sense to me. They should both be on a sports tier. In fact, in my opinion, a sports tier should have national/regional channels and then the ability to change or get different regional ones. So for example, if I live in the South maybe it would be the NBA channel, Golf Channel, Speed Channel, NFL Network, Fox Sports South, SEC Channel (whenever they do that). Then if I want to get Fox Sports Atlantic or the Big Ten Channel instead, I could do that.

 

[shadow2k]

I didn't realize that NFLN won't allow the cable companies to place it on the higher priced sports channel pricing tier but I completely understand why NFLN doesn't want to be there. Cable customers think it's unfair that they don't get access to NFLN and complain that they would pay extra for the channel but NFLN wants a lot more viewers than will take the time to call up the cable company and upgrade their channel lineup. NFLN wants every cable subscriber so that they can sell ad space at higher levels of revenue and they know that they will get the added bump of the casual fan that will get sucked into liking NFLN and be able to bump ad revenue again. NFLN can grow faster and make money faster if they can stay on the basic cable tier.

So why doesn't NFLN lower their price to the cable companies and try to make most of their money from ad revenue instead of from the cable companies? After they get enough viewers that can't live without it they can raise their rates to the cable companies just like ESPN did and customers will be pissed off if they have to pay extra for it since it's rolled into the basic package at competitors like DirecTV.

TW could just put it in their Digital Tier, like my local cable company that competes directly with them is doing. It's not just Basic vs Sports Tier, NFLN relaxed their policies this year. Of course, TW would never tell you that.

Really? The article seems to say that NFLN is refusing it be put on any tier, or non basic package. What is the difference between a Digital Tier and a Sports Tier?

I work for a local cable company that competes directly with TWC. NFLN did not allow us to purchase/show the games last year, because we didn't have NFLN on our basic pkg, we had it in our Digital Tier. This year they let us keep it in the Digital Tier, and purchase the games as well. Digital Tier is about 50+ channels, plus all our Free OnDemand channels. For TWC, it's normally their channels in the 200's I believe.

Our Sports & Games Tier, where NFLN refuses to be put, is about 8 channels. Fox Sports channels that aren't the local ones, Tennis channel, Gol TV (soccer), The Sportsman Channel, and CSTV (college lacrosse, baseball, hockey, etc...). TW's Sports Tier is relatively similar I believe.

Dig Tier runs around $8/mo, Sports Tier about $3/mo with our company. NFLN doesn't want to be put in a Sports Tier, because those are very fan specific. That Tier is not popular...I'd guess maybe 5% of our customers subscribe to it. Where as maybe 50% of our customers have the Dig Tier. Huge difference....even if it is the more expensive Tier.

And of course, we carry NFLN in HD as well, as part of the HD Tier, which is an additional $8/mo as well.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

"That said, some cable companies are playing both sides of the issue. Many of the operators, Comcast included, have invested in their own sports networks that apply the same strategy used by ESPN and the NFL."

This is apples and oranges. These local channels are broadcasting local teams. There has to be greater interest, for example, among New Yorkers in watching Yankees or Mets games than a Thursday night Chiefs game.

Bentley, I agree with you -- feels odd to side with eth cable company -- but I do.

 

[Tex Goldstein]

I believe that a la carte programming is the way things are going to work in the future - perhaps on a monthly, per channel basis, perhaps on a per-program basis (you set a "bank" or budget per month - say $50, and then order programs you want each day. When your bank goes to $0, either you have to authorize a charge to refill your bank, or you automatically debit your CC/bank account for a pre-set amount).

It would benefit advertisers because they could get accurate, per channel data on viewership (who is actually ordering/using CNN vs. FoxNews; NFLN vs. ESPN, etc) - on the per-program basis it'd be even more detailed - true, it'd be trailing data, but at least they'd have an idea how many eyeballs their ads were attracting on a given channel. Part of the reason that advertisers are migrating to the internet, IMO, is because out here there are metrics (hitcounts, etc) to measure how active a website is, while on TV just because CNN is broadcast into 76 million homes (or whatever) doesn't necessarily mean they are viewed in those same homes...

my .02.

 

[videoguy505]

I believe that a la carte programming is the way things are going to work in the future - perhaps on a monthly, per channel basis, perhaps on a per-program basis (you set a "bank" or budget per month - say $50, and then order programs you want each day. When your bank goes to $0, either you have to authorize a charge to refill your bank, or you automatically debit your CC/bank account for a pre-set amount). It would benefit advertisers because they could get accurate, per channel data on viewership (who is actually ordering/using CNN vs. FoxNews; NFLN vs. ESPN, etc) - on the per-program basis it'd be even more detailed - true, it'd be trailing data, but at least they'd have an idea how many eyeballs their ads were attracting on a given channel. Part of the reason that advertisers are migrating to the internet, IMO, is because out here there are metrics (hitcounts, etc) to measure how active a website is, while on TV just because CNN is broadcast into 76 million homes (or whatever) doesn't necessarily mean they are viewed in those same homes...my .02.

My .02: Someday, we'll bill the media and the internet like we do electricity. It's all 1s and 0s coming in through a pipeline, and people will be billed for how much they use. Like "per kilobit hour". Some guy has 5 HDTVs on all the time, plus downloading huge files and stuff, will pay more than grandma just "watching her stories" for an hour a day and maybe checking email.

 

[Stabmug]

I wish I could reduce my Directv bill by getting rid of like MTV

Call your congressman. I believe "a la carte" programming is still being debated.

That's what is so funny about this. Cable does not want to force everyone to buy NFL Network, but they do not apply the same logic to any other channel.

Big Ten Channel down? Cable companies are making the same argument.

My bad, meant to say "every other channel". There arguement against not forcing every customer to pay for NFLN is the same arguement customer are making in pleading for 'a la carte' channel ordering.The cable company is using it as an arguement to gain public support - however, what they really want to do is place the NFLN into a sport tier that holds a bunch of sports channels I would otherwise not purchase.

They also do no force the samething onto their own sport channel investments (Comcast owns Comcast SportsNetworks and Versus - two sports stations).

Finally, cable companies have a habit of trying to protect their own interest by pleading to the public's passions when it suits their needs only - they do it in my area in trying to lobby against Verizon's FIOS service - saying it is only for the rich. I have it, I'm not rich. And now with this - trying to appeal to the masses in making it sound like they are for the customer - when in retrospect, they want to get more people subscribing to more channels through a sports tier.

I could see Big Ten Channel getting added to a sports tier package - easy.

BTW - Verizon Fios still has NFL Network as part of basic and I hope they keep it that way.

Two things here:Of course they are maximizing profit. They're a public company. And given that Time Warner is a large company and member of the S&P 500, I'm guessing that a whole lot of people here own it in their mutual funds. We are all much better off with TW maximizing their profit than we are with the NFL maximizing their profit.

Here's where you lose me: The Big Ten Channel should be on a sports tier, but NFL Network shouldn't? How does that work? A network that basically shows one level of one sport (with some college football mixed in) should be on basic cable over a channel that shows one level of many sports?? That just doesn't make sense to me. They should both be on a sports tier. In fact, in my opinion, a sports tier should have national/regional channels and then the ability to change or get different regional ones. So for example, if I live in the South maybe it would be the NBA channel, Golf Channel, Speed Channel, NFL Network, Fox Sports South, SEC Channel (whenever they do that). Then if I want to get Fox Sports Atlantic or the Big Ten Channel instead, I could do that.

I'm not sure where you think I'm losing you. I'm neither for against where the NFL Network should be. Same goes for the Big Ten Channel.I'm commenting on the situtation and the cable companies attempt to try and appear 'for the consumer' when ultimately what motivates them is selling product in a way that maximizes profit. I have no problem with a business doing that (maximizing profit), but their attempt to appear 'for the consumer' by protecting all customers from having to pay for the NFL Network is bogus and an insult to all their customers' collective intelligence.

Some of what is driving this is cable versus NFL. Most of what is driving this, imo, is NFL Network will be a linchpin channel to get more people to subscribe to the sports tier if it the NFL Network was moved to it.

A lot of times cable companies will let a new network start out on basic to help the network get established. It does the cable providers no good to have a new network in a special tier where gaining new viewership will be made more difficult. The new networks are typically so cheap it won't impact basic rates and the bottomline - it is a cost of growing the product.

I'm not in the loop with what is going on with the Big Ten Channel. If it is starting out on basic, I can see that. If it's being forced to a sports tier, I can see that too.

What I am saying is that moving the NFL Network to a sports tier does not offer 'a la carte' channel chosing, it does not help the consumer and it is all about Comcast, TW and company getting more sports tier subscriptions.

From a business standpoint, I totally understand what the cable companies are doing.

From a consumer standpoint, they piss me off beyond disbelief.

ETA: if cable companies really believed what they were selling to NFL Network, they would take the same hardline stance with all their programming. ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNNews, ESPN Classic and Versus would all be in a sports tier. Food Network, TDC, TLC, HSN, etc would all be in a 'for your wife' Tier.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I wish I could reduce my Directv bill by getting rid of like MTV

Call your congressman. I believe "a la carte" programming is still being debated.

That's what is so funny about this. Cable does not want to force everyone to buy NFL Network, but they do not apply the same logic to any other channel.

Big Ten Channel down? Cable companies are making the same argument.

My bad, meant to say "every other channel". There arguement against not forcing every customer to pay for NFLN is the same arguement customer are making in pleading for 'a la carte' channel ordering.The cable company is using it as an arguement to gain public support - however, what they really want to do is place the NFLN into a sport tier that holds a bunch of sports channels I would otherwise not purchase.

They also do no force the samething onto their own sport channel investments (Comcast owns Comcast SportsNetworks and Versus - two sports stations).

Finally, cable companies have a habit of trying to protect their own interest by pleading to the public's passions when it suits their needs only - they do it in my area in trying to lobby against Verizon's FIOS service - saying it is only for the rich. I have it, I'm not rich. And now with this - trying to appeal to the masses in making it sound like they are for the customer - when in retrospect, they want to get more people subscribing to more channels through a sports tier.

I could see Big Ten Channel getting added to a sports tier package - easy.

BTW - Verizon Fios still has NFL Network as part of basic and I hope they keep it that way.

Two things here:Of course they are maximizing profit. They're a public company. And given that Time Warner is a large company and member of the S&P 500, I'm guessing that a whole lot of people here own it in their mutual funds. We are all much better off with TW maximizing their profit than we are with the NFL maximizing their profit.

Here's where you lose me: The Big Ten Channel should be on a sports tier, but NFL Network shouldn't? How does that work? A network that basically shows one level of one sport (with some college football mixed in) should be on basic cable over a channel that shows one level of many sports?? That just doesn't make sense to me. They should both be on a sports tier. In fact, in my opinion, a sports tier should have national/regional channels and then the ability to change or get different regional ones. So for example, if I live in the South maybe it would be the NBA channel, Golf Channel, Speed Channel, NFL Network, Fox Sports South, SEC Channel (whenever they do that). Then if I want to get Fox Sports Atlantic or the Big Ten Channel instead, I could do that.

I'm not sure where you think I'm losing you. I'm neither for against where the NFL Network should be. Same goes for the Big Ten Channel.I'm commenting on the situtation and the cable companies attempt to try and appear 'for the consumer' when ultimately what motivates them is selling product in a way that maximizes profit. I have no problem with a business doing that (maximizing profit), but their attempt to appear 'for the consumer' by protecting all customers from having to pay for the NFL Network is bogus and an insult to all their customers' collective intelligence.

Some of what is driving this is cable versus NFL. Most of what is driving this, imo, is NFL Network will be a linchpin channel to get more people to subscribe to the sports tier if it the NFL Network was moved to it.

A lot of times cable companies will let a new network start out on basic to help the network get established. It does the cable providers no good to have a new network in a special tier where gaining new viewership will be made more difficult. The new networks are typically so cheap it won't impact basic rates and the bottomline - it is a cost of growing the product.

I'm not in the loop with what is going on with the Big Ten Channel. If it is starting out on basic, I can see that. If it's being forced to a sports tier, I can see that too.

What I am saying is that moving the NFL Network to a sports tier does not offer 'a la carte' channel chosing, it does not help the consumer and it is all about Comcast, TW and company getting more sports tier subscriptions.

From a business standpoint, I totally understand what the cable companies are doing.

From a consumer standpoint, they piss me off beyond disbelief.

OK, but why doesn't the NFL piss you off from the consumer standpoint? Or do they? They are obviously doing the exact same thing as cable companies, trying to maximize their profit.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Missed your edit and it's not that I disagree in principal. It's more that I think it would very hard for them to do that after the fact, without re-doing the whole system, rather than start doing it going forward. To me, it appears like they are starting with the NFL Network and continuing the practice with the Big Ten Channel. I assume they would do the same with any other new "niche" network. If they don't, then shame on them. But I'm guessing that besides screwing the NFL (which it sounds like deserves some screwing), their main desire here is to be able to say to consumers or more importantly, Congress: "hey, we're moving new niche channels to tiers and creating packages of themed channels so consumers have more choices". I don't think that should stop Congress from trying to push for more ala carte, but doing something is likely cable's goal here.

Now, if some new Oprah 24/7 channel comes out, that should be in a tier as well. A channel like that would show whether the cable companies are being consistent or not.

 

[Tex Goldstein]

I believe that a la carte programming is the way things are going to work in the future - perhaps on a monthly, per channel basis, perhaps on a per-program basis (you set a "bank" or budget per month - say $50, and then order programs you want each day. When your bank goes to $0, either you have to authorize a charge to refill your bank, or you automatically debit your CC/bank account for a pre-set amount). It would benefit advertisers because they could get accurate, per channel data on viewership (who is actually ordering/using CNN vs. FoxNews; NFLN vs. ESPN, etc) - on the per-program basis it'd be even more detailed - true, it'd be trailing data, but at least they'd have an idea how many eyeballs their ads were attracting on a given channel. Part of the reason that advertisers are migrating to the internet, IMO, is because out here there are metrics (hitcounts, etc) to measure how active a website is, while on TV just because CNN is broadcast into 76 million homes (or whatever) doesn't necessarily mean they are viewed in those same homes...my .02.

My .02: Someday, we'll bill the media and the internet like we do electricity. It's all 1s and 0s coming in through a pipeline, and people will be billed for how much they use. Like "per kilobit hour". Some guy has 5 HDTVs on all the time, plus downloading huge files and stuff, will pay more than grandma just "watching her stories" for an hour a day and maybe checking email.

I like this idea. However, it wouldn't provide the ad targeting data that I think is going to drive the a la carte (whether per month or per show) model in the near future.I agree, though, that once TV, telephone and internet fully fuse into a single wireless information pipeline, it would make sense to charge for data volume. Make sense at the "mega" level (corporatin video conferencing a global shareholders' meeting, for example) and also at the grandma just "watching her stories" micro level.

 

[GregR_2]

...OK, but why doesn't the NFL piss you off from the consumer standpoint? Or do they? They are obviously doing the exact same thing as cable companies, trying to maximize their profit.

Realize you are asking this on a fantasy football board. People here for the most part want the channel. Including its price in the base package means people here get the channel for only the added cost of the channel. And that added cost is less than in the sports tier since everyone is paying for it. In effect, even those who don't care about NFLN end up partially subsidizing the price for those who do want it.Put it in the sports package and now people here have to buy the sports package. They don't just pay for the NFLN, but they pay for 25 Fox Sports local channels whose broadcasting worth seeing is all blacked out anyway because you have to buy their pro or college sports pack to see it.In short, for people on this board, the NFLN's way of doing it is better for us, so of course we should favor it. Now bring up Oxygen or Lifetime on this board and how we have to pay for it on the basic tier and in general people will feel the exact opposite, that we don't want to have to pay for a channel we'll never watch.Go over to a women's discussion board and you'll find the stances flipped I'm sure, they don't want to pay extra for NFLN, but are probably more likely to be fine with Oxygen and Lifetime being on the basic tier.As for my personal stance, as you say, both are being greedy. But if I had to side with one or the other I don't see how anyone can side with cable. I do think that the NFLN is of as much widespread appeal as the other channels being forced on people in the basic package. So the base package makes more sense to me than sports tier only. But the best solution to me is to make NFLN an ala carte channel. If the cable companies want to leverage it to get more sports tier people they can then offer a discount on a joint Sports Tier-NFLN package that costs less than getting either separately.However, the cable companies are the ones who have always resisted ala carte programming, thus why I can't see siding with them. Maybe NFLN won't support it either, I'm not sure. If not I'm back to not siding with either. If NFLN is ok with that solution, then to me it is cable that is refusing to adopt the solution that makes the most sense. So I either side with NFLN or neither. More likely neither.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Nice reply and I agree that I face an uphill battle on this board. Just trying to point out the inconsistencies with some of the arguments here. I really think that a new 24/7 Oprah channel would be a good opposite test case like you mentioned because a lot of woman would argue that, like the NFL, Oprah is SO popular that she should be on basic.

 

[Thorpe]

The last thing I want is ala carte programming. I get the ESPN Gameplan College Football package every year, and every Saturday I turn on the tube to find half the games blacked out that shouldn't be blacked out. If there were ala carte programming you would spend more time on the phone with customer service getting the channels you paid for than you would watching the tube.

The NFL Network is not for the casual fan. To me, it is the same as NBATV and that is available through TW in the "Sports and Movies" package. That is the logical place for NFLN, and I don't blame TW for holding out. Besides, if you are a serious fan of the NFL you should have sattelite anyways, so the issue is somewhat moot.

 

[Stabmug]

OK, but why doesn't the NFL piss you off from the consumer standpoint? Or do they? They are obviously doing the exact same thing as cable companies, trying to maximize their profit.

No for 2 reasons:1-The NFL is not going public with an arguement that pretends they are fighting for consumer rights - cable companies do that.2-I like not having to pay for the sports tier.Now, if cable companies were committed to overhauling the system, maybe, just maybe, I could be more open about this. But I simple feel, this is not about overhauling the system for the betterment of consumers, but rather for the benefit of the sports tier as a revenue generating option.Finally, this is not a new stance. Cable companies have wanted NFL Network in a sports tier for some time. They finally played their hand this summer. However, Versus, a Comcast project, was not moved to a sports tier. I think they have already showed their willingness to be biased. The arguement makes sense now, but they won't be using it for long after this eventually gets resolved.Also, might I add this stance that all cable companies are taking against NFL Network is somewhat based on spite on the NFL and Direct TV's stronghold on the NFL Ticket. This is evidence by the fact that Comcast will not share Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia with DirectTV. An option Comcast has in exploiting a loophole in the law based on how the station delivers it's signal (does not use satellites). DirectTV has wanted this channel for years. Comcast won't give it. Along comes Verizon FiosTV and Comcast hands it right over. How do you explain that? Personally, I think Comcast did it in spite and because Comcast did not want Verizon joining DirectTV's effort to lobby congress and the FCC for a resolution.Is so political it makes you want to puke.

 

[Stabmug]

...OK, but why doesn't the NFL piss you off from the consumer standpoint? Or do they? They are obviously doing the exact same thing as cable companies, trying to maximize their profit.

Realize you are asking this on a fantasy football board. People here for the most part want the channel. Including its price in the base package means people here get the channel for only the added cost of the channel. And that added cost is less than in the sports tier since everyone is paying for it. In effect, even those who don't care about NFLN end up partially subsidizing the price for those who do want it.Put it in the sports package and now people here have to buy the sports package. They don't just pay for the NFLN, but they pay for 25 Fox Sports local channels whose broadcasting worth seeing is all blacked out anyway because you have to buy their pro or college sports pack to see it.In short, for people on this board, the NFLN's way of doing it is better for us, so of course we should favor it. Now bring up Oxygen or Lifetime on this board and how we have to pay for it on the basic tier and in general people will feel the exact opposite, that we don't want to have to pay for a channel we'll never watch.Go over to a women's discussion board and you'll find the stances flipped I'm sure, they don't want to pay extra for NFLN, but are probably more likely to be fine with Oxygen and Lifetime being on the basic tier.As for my personal stance, as you say, both are being greedy. But if I had to side with one or the other I don't see how anyone can side with cable. I do think that the NFLN is of as much widespread appeal as the other channels being forced on people in the basic package. So the base package makes more sense to me than sports tier only. But the best solution to me is to make NFLN an ala carte channel. If the cable companies want to leverage it to get more sports tier people they can then offer a discount on a joint Sports Tier-NFLN package that costs less than getting either separately.However, the cable companies are the ones who have always resisted ala carte programming, thus why I can't see siding with them. Maybe NFLN won't support it either, I'm not sure. If not I'm back to not siding with either. If NFLN is ok with that solution, then to me it is cable that is refusing to adopt the solution that makes the most sense. So I either side with NFLN or neither. More likely neither.

From a consumer standpoint - dead on.

 

[Pipes]

I wish I could reduce my Directv bill by getting rid of like MTV

Call your congressman. I believe "a la carte" programming is still being debated.

That's what is so funny about this. Cable does not want to force everyone to buy NFL Network, but they do not apply the same logic to any other channel.

Big Ten Channel down? Cable companies are making the same argument.

My bad, meant to say "every other channel". There arguement against not forcing every customer to pay for NFLN is the same arguement customer are making in pleading for 'a la carte' channel ordering.The cable company is using it as an arguement to gain public support - however, what they really want to do is place the NFLN into a sport tier that holds a bunch of sports channels I would otherwise not purchase.

They also do no force the samething onto their own sport channel investments (Comcast owns Comcast SportsNetworks and Versus - two sports stations).

Finally, cable companies have a habit of trying to protect their own interest by pleading to the public's passions when it suits their needs only - they do it in my area in trying to lobby against Verizon's FIOS service - saying it is only for the rich. I have it, I'm not rich. And now with this - trying to appeal to the masses in making it sound like they are for the customer - when in retrospect, they want to get more people subscribing to more channels through a sports tier.

I could see Big Ten Channel getting added to a sports tier package - easy.

BTW - Verizon Fios still has NFL Network as part of basic and I hope they keep it that way.

Two things here:Of course they are maximizing profit. They're a public company. And given that Time Warner is a large company and member of the S&P 500, I'm guessing that a whole lot of people here own it in their mutual funds. We are all much better off with TW maximizing their profit than we are with the NFL maximizing their profit.

Here's where you lose me: The Big Ten Channel should be on a sports tier, but NFL Network shouldn't? How does that work? A network that basically shows one level of one sport (with some college football mixed in) should be on basic cable over a channel that shows one level of many sports?? That just doesn't make sense to me. They should both be on a sports tier. In fact, in my opinion, a sports tier should have national/regional channels and then the ability to change or get different regional ones. So for example, if I live in the South maybe it would be the NBA channel, Golf Channel, Speed Channel, NFL Network, Fox Sports South, SEC Channel (whenever they do that). Then if I want to get Fox Sports Atlantic or the Big Ten Channel instead, I could do that.

I'm not sure where you think I'm losing you. I'm neither for against where the NFL Network should be. Same goes for the Big Ten Channel.I'm commenting on the situtation and the cable companies attempt to try and appear 'for the consumer' when ultimately what motivates them is selling product in a way that maximizes profit. I have no problem with a business doing that (maximizing profit), but their attempt to appear 'for the consumer' by protecting all customers from having to pay for the NFL Network is bogus and an insult to all their customers' collective intelligence.

Some of what is driving this is cable versus NFL. Most of what is driving this, imo, is NFL Network will be a linchpin channel to get more people to subscribe to the sports tier if it the NFL Network was moved to it.

A lot of times cable companies will let a new network start out on basic to help the network get established. It does the cable providers no good to have a new network in a special tier where gaining new viewership will be made more difficult. The new networks are typically so cheap it won't impact basic rates and the bottomline - it is a cost of growing the product.

I'm not in the loop with what is going on with the Big Ten Channel. If it is starting out on basic, I can see that. If it's being forced to a sports tier, I can see that too.

What I am saying is that moving the NFL Network to a sports tier does not offer 'a la carte' channel chosing, it does not help the consumer and it is all about Comcast, TW and company getting more sports tier subscriptions.

From a business standpoint, I totally understand what the cable companies are doing.

From a consumer standpoint, they piss me off beyond disbelief.

OK, but why doesn't the NFL piss you off from the consumer standpoint? Or do they? They are obviously doing the exact same thing as cable companies, trying to maximize their profit.

No they're not they're trying to maximize their exposure. Being relegated to a Sports Tier doesn't do that, they already have those fans in their pockets. By forcing Cable companies to put them on basic cable that opens the door to the more casual fan. As far as I'm concerned the NFL should be able to distribute their product as they see fit.

 

[Stabmug]

Nice reply and I agree that I face an uphill battle on this board. Just trying to point out the inconsistencies with some of the arguments here. I really think that a new 24/7 Oprah channel would be a good opposite test case like you mentioned because a lot of woman would argue that, like the NFL, Oprah is SO popular that she should be on basic.

This would be interesting - I don't have cable through Comcast anymore, so I would not know how things have progressed as of late. I now have FiosTV and Verizon does not seem to be in-line with the NFL Network going to a sport tier.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

I didn't realize that NFLN won't allow the cable companies to place it on the higher priced sports channel pricing tier but I completely understand why NFLN doesn't want to be there. Cable customers think it's unfair that they don't get access to NFLN and complain that they would pay extra for the channel but NFLN wants a lot more viewers than will take the time to call up the cable company and upgrade their channel lineup. NFLN wants every cable subscriber so that they can sell ad space at higher levels of revenue and they know that they will get the added bump of the casual fan that will get sucked into liking NFLN and be able to bump ad revenue again. NFLN can grow faster and make money faster if they can stay on the basic cable tier. So why doesn't NFLN lower their price to the cable companies and try to make most of their money from ad revenue instead of from the cable companies? After they get enough viewers that can't live without it they can raise their rates to the cable companies just like ESPN did and customers will be pissed off if they have to pay extra for it since it's rolled into the basic package at competitors like DirecTV.

This makes too much sense for them to consider.I work in the entertainment industry, and the short answer to your question is, there is too much short term thinking here, and too much consideration for the immediate money grab, but you are right. I call it crackhead economics, get someone hooked on the cheap and they'll pay anything once they realize their "luxury" has become a necessity. However, no suit wants to be seen as leaving money on the table, leaving a window for the next suit to get credit when they are able to bump revenues.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Nice reply and I agree that I face an uphill battle on this board. Just trying to point out the inconsistencies with some of the arguments here. I really think that a new 24/7 Oprah channel would be a good opposite test case like you mentioned because a lot of woman would argue that, like the NFL, Oprah is SO popular that she should be on basic.

This would be interesting - I don't have cable through Comcast anymore, so I would not know how things have progressed as of late. I now have FiosTV and Verizon does not seem to be in-line with the NFL Network going to a sport tier.

She's got a channel, its called Oxygen. The cable landscape is evolving rapidly.It used to be bascially basic vs. digital, though sports and movie packages were part of basic options to a limited extent. Basic is basically dead, as more and more channels are stripmined to entice viewers to go digital, so there was more room at the inn for fringe channels, but somehow sports nets have been segregataed. Al la carte packaging won't be all its cracked up to be. If cable companies are billed 3 bucks a month for ESPN, expect YOUR cost to be at least 4-5 bucks a month, and I'd expect that dollar or two to trickle to all channels. Of course, if you buy in bulk, or the current package, you'll save.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I wish I could reduce my Directv bill by getting rid of like MTV

Call your congressman. I believe "a la carte" programming is still being debated.

That's what is so funny about this. Cable does not want to force everyone to buy NFL Network, but they do not apply the same logic to any other channel.

Big Ten Channel down? Cable companies are making the same argument.

My bad, meant to say "every other channel". There arguement against not forcing every customer to pay for NFLN is the same arguement customer are making in pleading for 'a la carte' channel ordering.The cable company is using it as an arguement to gain public support - however, what they really want to do is place the NFLN into a sport tier that holds a bunch of sports channels I would otherwise not purchase.

They also do no force the samething onto their own sport channel investments (Comcast owns Comcast SportsNetworks and Versus - two sports stations).

Finally, cable companies have a habit of trying to protect their own interest by pleading to the public's passions when it suits their needs only - they do it in my area in trying to lobby against Verizon's FIOS service - saying it is only for the rich. I have it, I'm not rich. And now with this - trying to appeal to the masses in making it sound like they are for the customer - when in retrospect, they want to get more people subscribing to more channels through a sports tier.

I could see Big Ten Channel getting added to a sports tier package - easy.

BTW - Verizon Fios still has NFL Network as part of basic and I hope they keep it that way.

Two things here:Of course they are maximizing profit. They're a public company. And given that Time Warner is a large company and member of the S&P 500, I'm guessing that a whole lot of people here own it in their mutual funds. We are all much better off with TW maximizing their profit than we are with the NFL maximizing their profit.

Here's where you lose me: The Big Ten Channel should be on a sports tier, but NFL Network shouldn't? How does that work? A network that basically shows one level of one sport (with some college football mixed in) should be on basic cable over a channel that shows one level of many sports?? That just doesn't make sense to me. They should both be on a sports tier. In fact, in my opinion, a sports tier should have national/regional channels and then the ability to change or get different regional ones. So for example, if I live in the South maybe it would be the NBA channel, Golf Channel, Speed Channel, NFL Network, Fox Sports South, SEC Channel (whenever they do that). Then if I want to get Fox Sports Atlantic or the Big Ten Channel instead, I could do that.

I'm not sure where you think I'm losing you. I'm neither for against where the NFL Network should be. Same goes for the Big Ten Channel.I'm commenting on the situtation and the cable companies attempt to try and appear 'for the consumer' when ultimately what motivates them is selling product in a way that maximizes profit. I have no problem with a business doing that (maximizing profit), but their attempt to appear 'for the consumer' by protecting all customers from having to pay for the NFL Network is bogus and an insult to all their customers' collective intelligence.

Some of what is driving this is cable versus NFL. Most of what is driving this, imo, is NFL Network will be a linchpin channel to get more people to subscribe to the sports tier if it the NFL Network was moved to it.

A lot of times cable companies will let a new network start out on basic to help the network get established. It does the cable providers no good to have a new network in a special tier where gaining new viewership will be made more difficult. The new networks are typically so cheap it won't impact basic rates and the bottomline - it is a cost of growing the product.

I'm not in the loop with what is going on with the Big Ten Channel. If it is starting out on basic, I can see that. If it's being forced to a sports tier, I can see that too.

What I am saying is that moving the NFL Network to a sports tier does not offer 'a la carte' channel chosing, it does not help the consumer and it is all about Comcast, TW and company getting more sports tier subscriptions.

From a business standpoint, I totally understand what the cable companies are doing.

From a consumer standpoint, they piss me off beyond disbelief.

OK, but why doesn't the NFL piss you off from the consumer standpoint? Or do they? They are obviously doing the exact same thing as cable companies, trying to maximize their profit.

No they're not they're trying to maximize their exposure. Being relegated to a Sports Tier doesn't do that, they already have those fans in their pockets. By forcing Cable companies to put them on basic cable that opens the door to the more casual fan. As far as I'm concerned the NFL should be able to distribute their product as they see fit.

Ehh..I think you're being a little bit shortsighted here. They are trying to maximize their exposure because that exposure maximizes their ad revenue. Several other people have commented on that. It's not that the NFL truly wants more viewers of NFLN for the love of the game. They want their advertisers to pay more because X more people will see it on Basic Cable and that's how ad rates are figured: by eyeballs. Trust me, both sides are being greedy/out for money here. I'd like to go back to something I said that I'm surprised no one commented on: whose greed benefits us more. I just don't see how the NFL making more money helps me very much at all, while Time Warner or Comcast making more money helps me a lot. If they have more money, then it's likely they will either put that extra money back into the company, which should benefit the stock price, or they will increase a dividend payout. Both of these are capital gains for anyone with their stock, whether directly or in a mutual fund. So shouldn't I be happy for TW to try to make the most money they can off the NFL?

In fact in my personal situation, I already happily get the Sports Tier. So TW adding it to the Sports Tier wouldn't cost me more money, in theory. So if TW can find a way to get a lot more people to buy the Sports Tier, and make more money as a company, doesn't that benefit me?

 

[cobalt_27]

No they're not they're trying to maximize their exposure. Being relegated to a Sports Tier doesn't do that, they already have those fans in their pockets. By forcing Cable companies to put them on basic cable that opens the door to the more casual fan. As far as I'm concerned the NFL should be able to distribute their product as they see fit.

Of course they should. But, why shouldn't the cable/sat companies be afforded the same right to distribute their product as they see fit? Or, is it your argument that they should just be the pawns to whatever each individual channel wants them to do?

 

[bentley]

OK, but why doesn't the NFL piss you off from the consumer standpoint? Or do they? They are obviously doing the exact same thing as cable companies, trying to maximize their profit.

No for 2 reasons:1-The NFL is not going public with an arguement that pretends they are fighting for consumer rights - cable companies do that.2-I like not having to pay for the sports tier.Now, if cable companies were committed to overhauling the system, maybe, just maybe, I could be more open about this. But I simple feel, this is not about overhauling the system for the betterment of consumers, but rather for the benefit of the sports tier as a revenue generating option.Finally, this is not a new stance. Cable companies have wanted NFL Network in a sports tier for some time. They finally played their hand this summer. However, Versus, a Comcast project, was not moved to a sports tier. I think they have already showed their willingness to be biased. The arguement makes sense now, but they won't be using it for long after this eventually gets resolved.Also, might I add this stance that all cable companies are taking against NFL Network is somewhat based on spite on the NFL and Direct TV's stronghold on the NFL Ticket. This is evidence by the fact that Comcast will not share Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia with DirectTV. An option Comcast has in exploiting a loophole in the law based on how the station delivers it's signal (does not use satellites). DirectTV has wanted this channel for years. Comcast won't give it. Along comes Verizon FiosTV and Comcast hands it right over. How do you explain that? Personally, I think Comcast did it in spite and because Comcast did not want Verizon joining DirectTV's effort to lobby congress and the FCC for a resolution.Is so political it makes you want to puke.

Point 1 is Grade A bullplop. I couldn't pick up the sports page or turn on sports radio last year without hearing ads from the NFLN telling me how Time Warner was depriving me of my right to see Cowboys games. The only amusing thing was that they picked Drew Bledsoe as the pitchman, so I still had to look at him even when he was sitting on the end of the bench."We love you, we want to show you the Cowboys. It's just that awful Time Warner won't let us do that."

 

[Stabmug]

Ehh..I think you're being a little bit shortsighted here. They are trying to maximize their exposure because that exposure maximizes their ad revenue. Several other people have commented on that. It's not that the NFL truly wants more viewers of NFLN for the love of the game. They want their advertisers to pay more because X more people will see it on Basic Cable and that's how ad rates are figured: by eyeballs. Trust me, both sides are being greedy/out for money here. I'd like to go back to something I said that I'm surprised no one commented on: whose greed benefits us more. I just don't see how the NFL making more money helps me very much at all, while Time Warner or Comcast making more money helps me a lot. If they have more money, then it's likely they will either put that extra money back into the company, which should benefit the stock price, or they will increase a dividend payout. Both of these are capital gains for anyone with their stock, whether directly or in a mutual fund. So shouldn't I be happy for TW to try to make the most money they can off the NFL?In fact in my personal situation, I already happily get the Sports Tier. So TW adding it to the Sports Tier wouldn't cost me more money, in theory. So if TW can find a way to get a lot more people to buy the Sports Tier, and make more money as a company, doesn't that benefit me?

Not being short sited. NFL does not want to be in a sports tier because they want more exposure. I'm not arguing the business side of this.From a business, maximizing profit scenario:I understand why CABLE wants to do what CABLE wants to do. They want the channel in a lineup that will help them sell the sports tier to more customers. I underdstand why the NFL wants to do what the NFL wants to do. They want the channel in a lineup that will maximize viewership and therefore revenue.From a customer scenario:I know that I want the NFL Network be in the basic/digital lineup as I'd rather not pay for all the other meaningless sports stations I care not to watch to get it.I know that COMCAST CABLE has screwed with me for years in regards to being a trapped customer and quite frankly, I'm more open to seeing them get the screws handed to them when it comes to their bottom line.Back to the business side of it. I know what motivates the NFL - that seems pretty clear. CABLE is less clear to me. Why is not so clear? I'm not convinced that selling more sports tiers would raise more revenue than placing NFL Network in the basic lineup. With the NFL Lineup in basic everyone is paying for it. With the NFL Lineup in the Sports Tier, only Sports Tier subscribers are paying for it. Which will generate more revenue - NFL Network paid for by all or NFL Network paid for by those new subs to the Sports Tier?As a result, I offer alternative motives for why CABLE is black listing (strong arming) the NFL Network and it has to do with bitter relationships as a result of NFL Ticket and Direct TV.In the end, I find the way Cable is ganging up on the NFL to be a monopolistic response to a protected monopoly. It's the equivalent to price-fixing.Now, would it benefit me to have the Cable Companies do better so their stock price goes up which in turns fattens any money I have invested in that stock whether directly or indirectly? The answer is extremely personal with factors ranging towards what percentage of savings are actually invested in said cable companies to the what the expect rate of return would be if cable got their way with the NFL Network. Now I got to bang that up against my return on investment if cable did not get their way plus add to it my savings on a monthly basis for not paying for the sport tier reinvested at some expected rate of return.Not sure I want to put that formula together, but I can't see this being a big bottomline factor for those companies - it's one channel of how many?My heads hurts now...