Is the NFL dead? (1 Viewer)

[ericttspikes]

During football season I rarely watch ESPN at all. NFL Network is great.

The network is what, three years old? I remember ESPN at that age. George Grande and Bob Ley showing bowling clips on cheesy sets worse than your local news. They've come a long way, but NFL has a nice product out of the gate and they are already showing live games in year three. Sure, the games they had might not of been great match-ups, but I'd imagine CBS, FOX, NBC, and ESPN, who paid bags of money for their TV contracts, want the best games. I think NFL network is just getting their feet wet for when the contracts expire. When those deals are up, I think you'll see more games on NFL network. Maybe PPV? Who knows.

EXACTLY!Those of you used to getting your NFL games at home for free (or within your cable/satellite basic package) better start changing your thought process and opening your wallet. You're going to either have to start watching games at home with friends and split the PPV cost or head to the sports bar where your favorite adult beverage will increase in price by $.25 to $.50 in order to pay for the PPV broadcasts in their establishment.

It suxor, but it's coming.

No, it isn't. Aside from it being unequivocal suicide to reduce the league's viewership to the degree PPV would, *any* attempts by the NFL to make their product generally unavailable to the public could possibly result in a repeal of the league's existing antitrust exemption, which stems from the passage of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. Even the existing NFLN-Cable impasse has caused a minor push to strip the league of its exemption. Of course, the product remains generally available so there is no way Senator Specter can get support to get this through at this time, but that would definitely change if the product became generally unavailable. While there may be a handful of teams that would not mind the lifting of the exemption, so they can negotiate lucrative broadcasting deals for their own team, there are far more small-mid market teams who benefit greatly from the NFL's existing pooling of all NFL teams into a package deal with broadcasters.

I don't doubt what you say, but why are the networks losing money hand over fist on the NFL games now if they can simply put the league over a barrel and say you have to let us broadcast games at our terms or you guys get your anti trust revoked? For the privilege of broadcasting pro football, I read ABC could lose as much as $100 million a year. TV and technology is changing rapidly. When these contracts expire starting in 2010, the TV landscape will be radically changed. The analog signal will be pulled in 09 forcing all viewers to subscribe to some kind of digital programming or buy a converter. I'm not sure how these acts written in the '60's will reamin in effect in their current wording. What will generally available mean if 70 million people have to pay to access television at all?

The model of just beaming content to the masses and subsidizing it with advertising is over in 10 years. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. I see the NFL network ahead of that curve, figuring out how to best package and sell their content in an ever changing mediascape. All the networks are experimenting with alternate ways to sell their content, whether iTunes or internet streams. I doubt that in 10 years we will be watching television at all like we are today. I suspect a lot of it will be PPV in some respect, whether you pay for a particular sit com or sporting event.

 

[shadow2k]

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

I have large, wonderful trees that shade my house, and my very furry dog in the backyard, from the sun...but also block the southern sky exposure. I guess I could cut them down, but I don't want to...not to mention I'd have to chop my neighbors trees as well. These trees are older than I am. This is the type of thing I'm talking about. Sure, I could jump through all these hoops to get DirectTV, but I simply won't. My original point is still valid. The NFL isn't asking me to pay money to watch these games. They're asking me to abandon my cable provider of roughly 25yrs, pay more money for my internet due to a loss of the discount bundle, get a home phone installed that I haven't wanted or needed in over a decade, get a sub-par service (my HD quality is superior to that of DirectTV's "HDLite" crap), and pay more for what I currently recieve when you factor in the Premium movie channels, the local channels, and all the "InDemand" and "OnDemand" services I currently enjoy.There's just no way. The NFL can have my money once they make buying their service an option for me under reasonable terms. Right now, the hoops I'd have to jump through are completely unreasonable to me, and millions of other fans across the country.

 

[SteveUK]

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

I have large, wonderful trees that shade my house, and my very furry dog in the backyard, from the sun...but also block the southern sky exposure. I guess I could cut them down, but I don't want to...not to mention I'd have to chop my neighbors trees as well. These trees are older than I am. This is the type of thing I'm talking about. Sure, I could jump through all these hoops to get DirectTV, but I simply won't. My original point is still valid. The NFL isn't asking me to pay money to watch these games. They're asking me to abandon my cable provider of roughly 25yrs, pay more money for my internet due to a loss of the discount bundle, get a home phone installed that I haven't wanted or needed in over a decade, get a sub-par service (my HD quality is superior to that of DirectTV's "HDLite" crap), and pay more for what I currently recieve when you factor in the Premium movie channels, the local channels, and all the "InDemand" and "OnDemand" services I currently enjoy.There's just no way. The NFL can have my money once they make buying their service an option for me under reasonable terms. Right now, the hoops I'd have to jump through are completely unreasonable to me, and millions of other fans across the country.

If I could edit that to "Great Posting", I would.

 

[PMENFAN]

During football season I rarely watch ESPN at all. NFL Network is great.

The network is what, three years old? I remember ESPN at that age. George Grande and Bob Ley showing bowling clips on cheesy sets worse than your local news. They've come a long way, but NFL has a nice product out of the gate and they are already showing live games in year three. Sure, the games they had might not of been great match-ups, but I'd imagine CBS, FOX, NBC, and ESPN, who paid bags of money for their TV contracts, want the best games. I think NFL network is just getting their feet wet for when the contracts expire. When those deals are up, I think you'll see more games on NFL network. Maybe PPV? Who knows.

EXACTLY!Those of you used to getting your NFL games at home for free (or within your cable/satellite basic package) better start changing your thought process and opening your wallet. You're going to either have to start watching games at home with friends and split the PPV cost or head to the sports bar where your favorite adult beverage will increase in price by $.25 to $.50 in order to pay for the PPV broadcasts in their establishment.

It suxor, but it's coming.

No, it isn't. Aside from it being unequivocal suicide to reduce the league's viewership to the degree PPV would, *any* attempts by the NFL to make their product generally unavailable to the public could possibly result in a repeal of the league's existing antitrust exemption, which stems from the passage of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. Even the existing NFLN-Cable impasse has caused a minor push to strip the league of its exemption. Of course, the product remains generally available so there is no way Senator Specter can get support to get this through at this time, but that would definitely change if the product became generally unavailable. While there may be a handful of teams that would not mind the lifting of the exemption, so they can negotiate lucrative broadcasting deals for their own team, there are far more small-mid market teams who benefit greatly from the NFL's existing pooling of all NFL teams into a package deal with broadcasters.

I don't doubt what you say, but why are the networks losing money hand over fist on the NFL games now if they can simply put the league over a barrel and say you have to let us broadcast games at our terms or you guys get your anti trust revoked? For the privilege of broadcasting pro football, I read ABC could lose as much as $100 million a year. TV and technology is changing rapidly. When these contracts expire starting in 2010, the TV landscape will be radically changed. The analog signal will be pulled in 09 forcing all viewers to subscribe to some kind of digital programming or buy a converter. I'm not sure how these acts written in the '60's will reamin in effect in their current wording. What will generally available mean if 70 million people have to pay to access television at all?

The model of just beaming content to the masses and subsidizing it with advertising is over in 10 years. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. I see the NFL network ahead of that curve, figuring out how to best package and sell their content in an ever changing mediascape. All the networks are experimenting with alternate ways to sell their content, whether iTunes or internet streams. I doubt that in 10 years we will be watching television at all like we are today. I suspect a lot of it will be PPV in some respect, whether you pay for a particular sit com or sporting event.

I agree it will be a PPV model, but not an event based, but channel based. You subscribe to channels, rather than packages. I posted a WSJ article, the Thursday games averaged 7.8% market penetration. Of households that had the NFL Network available, 7.8% were watching that channel for the Thursday game. That's pretty huge when you think of how many other channels are available. Yes, it's only during games, and it will dilute the value of their contracts if they decide to go head to head with the networks, which I don't ever see. But I do see them taking maybe the Sunday night game, Saturday games, etc. Sunday afternnon football is an institution in America. I don't think it will ever be anywhere but where it is.

The premise of the thread was dead. I don't think when 7.8% of available sets are tuned to your broadcast that you are even close to dead. I think any channel out there would love to be marketing their ad space with those kinds of numbers. Their hurdle is nust to get into more markets. And they will in the end. When that many want to watch it, regardless of what the cable companies are saying, they're getting calls. Watch the earnings reports from satellite providers over the next couple of quarters, we'll see how much of an impact it had.

 

[brettdj]

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

I have large, wonderful trees that shade my house, and my very furry dog in the backyard, from the sun...but also block the southern sky exposure. I guess I could cut them down, but I don't want to...not to mention I'd have to chop my neighbors trees as well. These trees are older than I am. This is the type of thing I'm talking about. Sure, I could jump through all these hoops to get DirectTV, but I simply won't. My original point is still valid. The NFL isn't asking me to pay money to watch these games. They're asking me to abandon my cable provider of roughly 25yrs, pay more money for my internet due to a loss of the discount bundle, get a home phone installed that I haven't wanted or needed in over a decade, get a sub-par service (my HD quality is superior to that of DirectTV's "HDLite" crap), and pay more for what I currently recieve when you factor in the Premium movie channels, the local channels, and all the "InDemand" and "OnDemand" services I currently enjoy.There's just no way. The NFL can have my money once they make buying their service an option for me under reasonable terms. Right now, the hoops I'd have to jump through are completely unreasonable to me, and millions of other fans across the country.

Then don't watch. Oh wait a minute you can't watch, because your cable company won't let you.Lucky you oh might one

 

[SteveUK]

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?

How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

I have large, wonderful trees that shade my house, and my very furry dog in the backyard, from the sun...but also block the southern sky exposure. I guess I could cut them down, but I don't want to...not to mention I'd have to chop my neighbors trees as well. These trees are older than I am. This is the type of thing I'm talking about. Sure, I could jump through all these hoops to get DirectTV, but I simply won't. My original point is still valid. The NFL isn't asking me to pay money to watch these games. They're asking me to abandon my cable provider of roughly 25yrs, pay more money for my internet due to a loss of the discount bundle, get a home phone installed that I haven't wanted or needed in over a decade, get a sub-par service (my HD quality is superior to that of DirectTV's "HDLite" crap), and pay more for what I currently recieve when you factor in the Premium movie channels, the local channels, and all the "InDemand" and "OnDemand" services I currently enjoy.

There's just no way. The NFL can have my money once they make buying their service an option for me under reasonable terms. Right now, the hoops I'd have to jump through are completely unreasonable to me, and millions of other fans across the country.

Then don't watch. Oh wait a minute you can't watch, because the NFL won't come to an agreement with your cable company won't let you.Lucky you oh might one

Fixed.I apportion far more responsibility to the NFL than to my cable company.

 

[brettdj]

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?

How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

I have large, wonderful trees that shade my house, and my very furry dog in the backyard, from the sun...but also block the southern sky exposure. I guess I could cut them down, but I don't want to...not to mention I'd have to chop my neighbors trees as well. These trees are older than I am. This is the type of thing I'm talking about. Sure, I could jump through all these hoops to get DirectTV, but I simply won't. My original point is still valid. The NFL isn't asking me to pay money to watch these games. They're asking me to abandon my cable provider of roughly 25yrs, pay more money for my internet due to a loss of the discount bundle, get a home phone installed that I haven't wanted or needed in over a decade, get a sub-par service (my HD quality is superior to that of DirectTV's "HDLite" crap), and pay more for what I currently recieve when you factor in the Premium movie channels, the local channels, and all the "InDemand" and "OnDemand" services I currently enjoy.

There's just no way. The NFL can have my money once they make buying their service an option for me under reasonable terms. Right now, the hoops I'd have to jump through are completely unreasonable to me, and millions of other fans across the country.

Then don't watch. Oh wait a minute you can't watch, because the NFL won't come to an agreement with your cable company won't let you.Lucky you oh might one

Fixed.I apportion far more responsibility to the NFL than to my cable company.

No the NFL set its price, your cable company won't pay it.

 

[shadow2k]

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

I have large, wonderful trees that shade my house, and my very furry dog in the backyard, from the sun...but also block the southern sky exposure. I guess I could cut them down, but I don't want to...not to mention I'd have to chop my neighbors trees as well. These trees are older than I am. This is the type of thing I'm talking about. Sure, I could jump through all these hoops to get DirectTV, but I simply won't. My original point is still valid. The NFL isn't asking me to pay money to watch these games. They're asking me to abandon my cable provider of roughly 25yrs, pay more money for my internet due to a loss of the discount bundle, get a home phone installed that I haven't wanted or needed in over a decade, get a sub-par service (my HD quality is superior to that of DirectTV's "HDLite" crap), and pay more for what I currently recieve when you factor in the Premium movie channels, the local channels, and all the "InDemand" and "OnDemand" services I currently enjoy.There's just no way. The NFL can have my money once they make buying their service an option for me under reasonable terms. Right now, the hoops I'd have to jump through are completely unreasonable to me, and millions of other fans across the country.

Then don't watch. Oh wait a minute you can't watch, because your cable company won't let you.Lucky you oh might one

I watch the games on the internet if there's a game I really want to watch. That's not really the point though, did you even read through the whole thread?I'll sum up the reason I made my post, so that you can make an informed post next time. Someone said people weren't willing to pay to watch. I responded that many of us are more than willing to pay for NFLN, and even Sunday Ticket. But not willing to go to the lengths needed to even get that option.By the way, it isn't the cable company that won't let me. It's NFLN in my opinion. My cable provider is doing what's best for the majority of it's subscribers. NFL games might be popular in the US, but the majority of people don't give a rat's ### about NFL games on Thurs/Sat nights...especially when many of those games aren't interesting matchups to begin with. I'm one who would watch regardless, but I'm in the minority...and so are all of you. NFLN pulled some crap of their own to get this situation to where it is anyway. They signed up the smaller companies first with the intention of raking the big guys over the coals. Comcast and TWC called them on their bluff, and NFLN sat out the year. And for the prices they were asking, I don't blame them. I think Comcast offered $400mil, more than twice of what the next company pays, and got turned down...and TWC was asked to charge $0.70/subscriber/month and make it standard.NFLN is the one being greedy. The cable companies seem willing to pay, but not to the point where normal subscribers who don't give a rat's ### will have their rates hiked because of it. And I can't blame them for that. Honestly, if my cable bill got raised because a bunch of people wanted another Shopping Channel, I'd be pretty upset. Who do you think would be unhappier, the fans like me that can't get NFLN...or the millions of people in the majority who don't care about it that will have to pay the price for me to get that option?TWC and Comcast are trying to do what's best for their customers. Is the NFL? Hell no.

 

[SteveUK]

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?

How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

I have large, wonderful trees that shade my house, and my very furry dog in the backyard, from the sun...but also block the southern sky exposure. I guess I could cut them down, but I don't want to...not to mention I'd have to chop my neighbors trees as well. These trees are older than I am. This is the type of thing I'm talking about. Sure, I could jump through all these hoops to get DirectTV, but I simply won't. My original point is still valid. The NFL isn't asking me to pay money to watch these games. They're asking me to abandon my cable provider of roughly 25yrs, pay more money for my internet due to a loss of the discount bundle, get a home phone installed that I haven't wanted or needed in over a decade, get a sub-par service (my HD quality is superior to that of DirectTV's "HDLite" crap), and pay more for what I currently recieve when you factor in the Premium movie channels, the local channels, and all the "InDemand" and "OnDemand" services I currently enjoy.

There's just no way. The NFL can have my money once they make buying their service an option for me under reasonable terms. Right now, the hoops I'd have to jump through are completely unreasonable to me, and millions of other fans across the country.

Then don't watch. Oh wait a minute you can't watch, because the NFL won't come to an agreement with your cable company won't let you.Lucky you oh might one

Fixed.I apportion far more responsibility to the NFL than to my cable company.

No the NFL set its price, your cable company won't pay it.

And is that the same price NFL charge Dish & Directv?In any case, as I understand it, it is not about price, but about which package NFLN is placed in. The NFL want it in the base package (therefore expecting the cable company's to either pay out of profits or raise prices for ALL subscribers) - the cable company wants to put it in a Sports package. The NFL don't want that because then they'll have fewer viewers AND their subscribers will know what they are charging them (whether that is $8 per month, I don't know).

 

[Iron Mike Tomczak]

I did not intend to imply that the NFL Network was going to be profitable. In fact, I believe they have no prayer of being so. How can they compete with full networks who can absorb the cost of cameras, electronics, vehicles and personnel, and pay for this over a wide range of activities and time. The NFL Network has to do this for 6 to 10 games? It's not possible ...My comment was intended to show that they are missing the boat and the audience, and they are trying to squeeze the cable and satellite companies [and potential viewers] in order to fund this ridiculous endeavor.

I have to completely disagree. This is an investment. Much like a new owner and a new franchise. They don't expect to recover the money in year one. That would be foolish, especially when you're talking hundreds of millions in investments. But, have no doubt, this was not a whim. This was researched through and through. They will make money on it. It't not just the pro games. They also had the college games, or maybe you missed that. And, this was just the first year of games. Why should you pay? You don't have to. You're free to opt out and limit yourself to the games that are available on your local networks. It's no different than the Sunday Ticket. Every game has been available to DirecTV viewers for years, at a price. It's called market economics. If it's worth the price to you, you pay it. If not, you don't. I don't think most people would be opposed to paying an extra $1 a month for NFLN. Time Warner (et al)wants to lump this with Speed, NBATV, and a mucch of other crap I don't want, and charge me $20/ month. That's what the NFL doesn't want, because at that price, I will not buy it, and the NFL knows that. Time Warner (et al) is arguing both sides of the coin. At the same time they're pretending to protect the consumers, they're trying to line their pockets with the uber profitable premium sports package.

So true. Earlier in the post someone posted a statement of the NFL saying "Its just an asset, we dont need money" ....That is a remark of true BS. The NFL is feeding us ####. My reasoning? Anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of economics and business realizes that assets are aquired for one purpose and this purpose only: To Generate Revenue (profit). The NFL knew it would be taking a bullet in 06 starting this programming scheme. Doesnt mean it wont be profitable in the future. Ex. Who buys a savings bond that will mature at $500, Spend $110 on it when its initially worth maybe $100, then cash it? In time it will pay for itself, so the $10 "lost" would end up being a nice profit in time.They will pretty much have a monopoly. Being the sole provider of certain games they are forcing fans to purchase the NFL network or be left in the dark. This year the NFL network was just testing the waters, I agree with whomever said they will be carrying more games in the future. In the end, bite the bullet fellas, you'll have no choice if you wanna see Every national game in the comfort of your home.If not, the bars are always open, and the time is always right.

 

[shadow2k]

In the end, bite the bullet fellas, you'll have no choice if you wanna see Every national game in the comfort of your home.If not, the bars are always open, and the time is always right.

My bet is that this won't be the case come this time next year. NFLN is currently missing out on over a BILLION dollars in contracts alone from the cable providers, and that's not even accounting for all the missing ad revenue and exposure. That's just not smart business.They figured the cable companies would cave when the games started airing. It didn't happen. Time for them to come up with a new plan. And if they're smart, they'll do the right thing for their fans. Because if they continue down this path, the interest will wane, the same way people hated all the greed that was so rampant in MLB, and why that sport is often no longer considered to truly be the national pasttime.Won't even get into the PPV aspect of it. That would be pure stupidity. One only has to look at what happened to boxing since the PPV inception to figure out why. Lack of exposure led to both a reduced fan base, and a reduced quality in athletes who went into that sport. The great boxers of our time are all playing other sports these days. If the NFL wants to continue it's popularity...they'll need to start making better decisions that aren't all based on the almighty $.

 

[Yah_Shoor_Yoobetchya]

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?

How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

I have large, wonderful trees that shade my house, and my very furry dog in the backyard, from the sun...but also block the southern sky exposure. I guess I could cut them down, but I don't want to...not to mention I'd have to chop my neighbors trees as well. These trees are older than I am. This is the type of thing I'm talking about. Sure, I could jump through all these hoops to get DirectTV, but I simply won't. My original point is still valid. The NFL isn't asking me to pay money to watch these games. They're asking me to abandon my cable provider of roughly 25yrs, pay more money for my internet due to a loss of the discount bundle, get a home phone installed that I haven't wanted or needed in over a decade, get a sub-par service (my HD quality is superior to that of DirectTV's "HDLite" crap), and pay more for what I currently recieve when you factor in the Premium movie channels, the local channels, and all the "InDemand" and "OnDemand" services I currently enjoy.

There's just no way. The NFL can have my money once they make buying their service an option for me under reasonable terms. Right now, the hoops I'd have to jump through are completely unreasonable to me, and millions of other fans across the country.

Ummm.....not being able (or willing) to get a DirecTV dish installed might have something to do with this, don't you think?

 

[H.K.]

Hard to have high ratings if you can't even reach a large percentage of your audience.

NFL thinks they have the power to withhold their product and customers will go nuts trying to get it.Quite simply, they are wrong. Those people who wanted NFLN that badly probably already have it. If moving games to Thursday and Saturday night were enough to get a few more people over to satellite, they've probably already converted, too.Cable companies control distribution right now, and people won't leave cable providers in droves just for NFLN.However, consumers not able to get NFLN will simply do something besides watch football. NFL is playing a game it won't win. Boxing was wildly popular in this country until it went PPV, now nobody cares because nobody watches fights.Baseball was very popular until they kept going on strike and people got used to not having it around. A lot of people never returned as fans.Hardcore NFL junkies have probably already done what NFLN wanted and switched over to DirectTV. The expectation for a mad exodus from cable providers simply to get NFLN will not happen.The NFL can't have viewers if nobody has access to their product. It's that simple.

 

[Bushead]

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?

How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

I have large, wonderful trees that shade my house, and my very furry dog in the backyard, from the sun...but also block the southern sky exposure. I guess I could cut them down, but I don't want to...not to mention I'd have to chop my neighbors trees as well. These trees are older than I am. This is the type of thing I'm talking about. Sure, I could jump through all these hoops to get DirectTV, but I simply won't. My original point is still valid. The NFL isn't asking me to pay money to watch these games. They're asking me to abandon my cable provider of roughly 25yrs, pay more money for my internet due to a loss of the discount bundle, get a home phone installed that I haven't wanted or needed in over a decade, get a sub-par service (my HD quality is superior to that of DirectTV's "HDLite" crap), and pay more for what I currently recieve when you factor in the Premium movie channels, the local channels, and all the "InDemand" and "OnDemand" services I currently enjoy.

There's just no way. The NFL can have my money once they make buying their service an option for me under reasonable terms. Right now, the hoops I'd have to jump through are completely unreasonable to me, and millions of other fans across the country.

Then don't watch. Oh wait a minute you can't watch, because the NFL won't come to an agreement with your cable company won't let you.Lucky you oh might one

Fixed.I apportion far more responsibility to the NFL than to my cable company.

Couple of points to consider. If the cable companies were not actively and viciously opposed to any form of ala carte, this would not be an issue, you could actually pick whatever you want to pay for. While slightly off topic, this is the simple answer.

Why should the NFLN just settle for whatever the cable companies are willing to offer? Cable companies propose putting the channel on a sports tier, then why is ESPN (that roughly 20-30% of basic subscribers watch) on the basic tier? While I am on that point, most cable cos have ESPN ($2.60 per subscriber), ESPN2 ($2.00), ESPN News ($.70) & ESPN Classic ($.50) all right in the middle of their sacred basic channel lineup. Shouln't these "sports" channels be on a sports tier as well?

NFLN is asking for somewhere between $.85 and $.95 per subscriber on a basic tier. Thats about 1/2 what ESPN2 gets and about a dime more than ESPN News. Unreasonable?

Everyone wants to point the finger at the NFL here, but it is interesting that the cable companies don't mind putting the $4.00 (plus cable markups) package of ESPN channels on a basic package and having the 70% that don't watch them subsidize the cost for the other 30% that do. Unfortunately for NFLN, they just don't have the "big stick" of Disney to ram their channels down everyones throat.

Furthermore, where do you suppose a company like TWC has placed their suite of channels; CNN, Headline News, CNNI, TNT, USA, Turner Classic Movies, Lifetime Movies, TBS, etc, etc? Yep, basic tier. CNN alone is $.45 a month.

On the service cost issue, while certainly everyone's bills are different, TWC has the highest average cost per subscriber in the industry at about $98 compared to Directv at roughly $70. They also had a record year in the profit department...yeah they are looking our for the customer

 

[AB in DC]

While I am on that point, most cable cos have ESPN ($2.60 per subscriber), ESPN2 ($2.00), ESPN News ($.70) & ESPN Classic ($.50) all right in the middle of their sacred basic channel lineup.

 

[AB in DC]

They also had a record year in the profit department...yeah they are looking our for the customer

By the way, if you think that "record profit" and "looking out for the customer" are completely contradictory, you have a serious misunderstanding about the meaning of capitalism.

 

[Yah_Shoor_Yoobetchya]

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?

How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

I have large, wonderful trees that shade my house, and my very furry dog in the backyard, from the sun...but also block the southern sky exposure. I guess I could cut them down, but I don't want to...not to mention I'd have to chop my neighbors trees as well. These trees are older than I am. This is the type of thing I'm talking about. Sure, I could jump through all these hoops to get DirectTV, but I simply won't. My original point is still valid. The NFL isn't asking me to pay money to watch these games. They're asking me to abandon my cable provider of roughly 25yrs, pay more money for my internet due to a loss of the discount bundle, get a home phone installed that I haven't wanted or needed in over a decade, get a sub-par service (my HD quality is superior to that of DirectTV's "HDLite" crap), and pay more for what I currently recieve when you factor in the Premium movie channels, the local channels, and all the "InDemand" and "OnDemand" services I currently enjoy.

There's just no way. The NFL can have my money once they make buying their service an option for me under reasonable terms. Right now, the hoops I'd have to jump through are completely unreasonable to me, and millions of other fans across the country.

Then don't watch. Oh wait a minute you can't watch, because the NFL won't come to an agreement with your cable company won't let you.Lucky you oh might one

Fixed.I apportion far more responsibility to the NFL than to my cable company.

Couple of points to consider. If the cable companies were not actively and viciously opposed to any form of ala carte, this would not be an issue, you could actually pick whatever you want to pay for. While slightly off topic, this is the simple answer.

Why should the NFLN just settle for whatever the cable companies are willing to offer? Cable companies propose putting the channel on a sports tier, then why is ESPN (that roughly 20-30% of basic subscribers watch) on the basic tier? While I am on that point, most cable cos have ESPN ($2.60 per subscriber), ESPN2 ($2.00), ESPN News ($.70) & ESPN Classic ($.50) all right in the middle of their sacred basic channel lineup. Shouln't these "sports" channels be on a sports tier as well?

NFLN is asking for somewhere between $.85 and $.95 per subscriber on a basic tier. Thats about 1/2 what ESPN2 gets and about a dime more than ESPN News. Unreasonable?

Everyone wants to point the finger at the NFL here, but it is interesting that the cable companies don't mind putting the $4.00 (plus cable markups) package of ESPN channels on a basic package and having the 70% that don't watch them subsidize the cost for the other 30% that do. Unfortunately for NFLN, they just don't have the "big stick" of Disney to ram their channels down everyones throat.

Furthermore, where do you suppose a company like TWC has placed their suite of channels; CNN, Headline News, CNNI, TNT, USA, Turner Classic Movies, Lifetime Movies, TBS, etc, etc? Yep, basic tier. CNN alone is $.45 a month.

On the service cost issue, while certainly everyone's bills are different, TWC has the highest average cost per subscriber in the industry at about $98 compared to Directv at roughly $70. They also had a record year in the profit department...yeah they are looking our for the customer

I had to re-read this several times before I realized "TWC" was referring to "Time Warner Cable".I was initially trying to read this with "TWC" meaning "The Weather Channel". Made no sense that way.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I did not intend to imply that the NFL Network was going to be profitable. In fact, I believe they have no prayer of being so. How can they compete with full networks who can absorb the cost of cameras, electronics, vehicles and personnel, and pay for this over a wide range of activities and time. The NFL Network has to do this for 6 to 10 games? It's not possible ...

My comment was intended to show that they are missing the boat and the audience, and they are trying to squeeze the cable and satellite companies [and potential viewers] in order to fund this ridiculous endeavor.

I have to completely disagree. This is an investment. Much like a new owner and a new franchise. They don't expect to recover the money in year one. That would be foolish, especially when you're talking hundreds of millions in investments. But, have no doubt, this was not a whim. This was researched through and through. They will make money on it. It't not just the pro games. They also had the college games, or maybe you missed that. And, this was just the first year of games.

Why should you pay? You don't have to. You're free to opt out and limit yourself to the games that are available on your local networks. It's no different than the Sunday Ticket. Every game has been available to DirecTV viewers for years, at a price. It's called market economics. If it's worth the price to you, you pay it. If not, you don't.

I don't think most people would be opposed to paying an extra $1 a month for NFLN. Time Warner (et al)wants to lump this with Speed, NBATV, and a mucch of other crap I don't want, and charge me $20/ month. That's what the NFL doesn't want, because at that price, I will not buy it, and the NFL knows that. Time Warner (et al) is arguing both sides of the coin. At the same time they're pretending to protect the consumers, they're trying to line their pockets with the uber profitable premium sports package.

And you're getting on TMQ for hyperbole. I get the TWC sports tier and it costs $6.95 a month and the best part is that you get all the main Fox Sports Channels (Atlantic, Central, Mountain and Pacific) so you see some opposite coast games.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Why should the NFLN just settle for whatever the cable companies are willing to offer? Cable companies propose putting the channel on a sports tier, then why is ESPN (that roughly 20-30% of basic subscribers watch) on the basic tier? While I am on that point, most cable cos have ESPN ($2.60 per subscriber), ESPN2 ($2.00), ESPN News ($.70) & ESPN Classic ($.50) all right in the middle of their sacred basic channel lineup. Shouln't these "sports" channels be on a sports tier as well?

I can't tell if people are just too dumb to get this or if they are ignoring it to better make their anti-cable point, but the ESPN networks show ALL sports. Let me repeat that for those with a reading comprehension issue. The ESPN networks show ALL sports. Networks that just show one sport or one region, like say NBATV, Speed, Fox Sports Pacific, etc, are niche channels that should be in tiers. If there was a new MLBTV channel showing only Major League Baseball, it should be in the tier. When the new Big Ten channel debuts, it should be in the tier. Now, I'm not arguing that all those channels shouldn't be available ala carte. They should. But in today's cable channel environment, they should be in a sports tier. If CNN/SI tries to come back with another all sport channel to challenge ESPN like they did several years ago, it should be on basic cable.

Understand?

Edit to add that I'm not singling out Bushead here. Lots of people have tried to equate ESPN and NFLN in many posts here. It's a ridiculous notion.

 

[AB in DC]

Another thing I don't get is that my current cable system, Cox, has NFLN on a separate sports & information tier already, and I don't remember any bellyaching from the NFL.

Of course, the tier is only $2 (and includes ESPNClassic, ESPNews, and a dozen other channels), so that may have something to do with it.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Another thing I don't get is that my current cable system, Cox, has NFLN on a separate sports & information tier already, and I don't remember any bellyaching from the NFL. Of course, the tier is only $2 (and includes ESPNClassic, ESPNews, and a dozen other channels), so that may have something to do with it.

As someone mentioned above, I think the NFL's strategy was to allow the smaller cable companies to put the NFLN wherever they wanted to get some market penetration. But when it came to the biggest cable companies, like TWC, they made a stand. I think they either did this on purpose because TWC is a much bigger target and the loss of eyeballs having it on the basic tier was much bigger, or they realized the problem after allowing smaller cable companies to put it there and changed their strategy for the big companies.

 

[Dancing Bear]

I think that this is a bad thing for the NFL to do, period.

We are all paying for access to these games every week by being subject to the insufferable commercials; the advertising $ should be sufficient. I feel that it is unreasonable to have to pay for access to these games with a subscription, and then have to pay double by having to watch the commercials.

Assuming my cable company [TWC] offers the subscription, I'd be willing to pay for it if I could watch without commercials. I'd also be willing to pay for it, if it meant that I could pick and choose which game I want to watch at 1:00 pm and 4:00 pm each Sunday instead of being tied to the local network programming.

NFL Network might have great additional programming besides the games 24/7, but that does not help me. Outside of Football games I may watch TV 1 hour more a week, and the additional programming is useless to me. I don't have the time for it.

 

[Big Score]

I think the NFL thought by simply starting up a network people would be willing to dish out $ to watch NFL games...doesn't seem like it so far.

It's not that simple. I'd pay money for NFL network, no problem. But I wasn't given that choice.My choice is to drop a carrier I've had for roughly 25yrs, switch to a substandard service compared to what I currently receive, and pay more money to do it...not to mention having to also pay more money for my internet due to no longer recieving a package discount, as well as having to purchase a home phone line to access all the same services I enjoy now (something I haven't had for over a decade). This is all ignoring the fact that I can't even get DirectTV anyway.

The NFL is asking for far more than just cash for games. Because I'd happily pay the money for the NFLN AND Sunday Ticket if it were just that simple.

Isn't DirecTV via satellite?

How can you NOT get it unless you live on a planet other than Earth?

Lot of neighborhoods have covenants prohibiting the Dish. Lot of condos the same.

Lot of apartments the same.

In older well established neighborhoods, large trees interfere with the signal.

That's just a few off the top of my head.

As for me, luckily I was in an area where the NFLN allowed my Cable company to place them in a higher sports tier, instead of telling my cable company place them on basic or nothing, like they have with some cable companies.

Paid the xtra $ for pre-season & regular season, then canceled the NFLN this past weekend. After talking with someone at my cable company, that seems to be the SOP. Lots of folks here canceling that upper tier package now that the NFL season is over.

Neighborhood convenants prohibiting the small dish are illegal. condos and apartments are only prevented by balcony space/landlord. A new apartment building behind my house has 3 dishes attached to it.

Trees, OK. But you could cut them down or trim them.

But to get DTV or DISH you need to live in North America.

I guess it depends on which state you live in, but I know here in Georgia, there are most definitely private neighborhood communities, with covenants banning the dish.Some apartments / condos allow the Dish, some don't. Regardless of balcony space, ff you happen to live in apartments or condos that prohibit the Dish, you're SOL. Then just like you said, in other instances, you may be in apartments or condos without balcony space for the Dish & again you're SOL.

For people who know better & have beautiful mature hardwoods on their property, they aren't going to cut them down to get the dish if they have other less damaging options available.

#1) Mature hardwoods add to the value of your property.

#2) Mature hardwoods save you money on energy consumption for the heating & cooling of your house

For people who have their Southern line of sight blocked by their neighbors trees, cutting down / trimming those trees, is not even an option.

Lastly, lots of cities / counties, now have moratoriums on cutting down trees without good reason (I happen to be in just such a county). If you're in an area that has other options for TV signal delivery than the Dish, requesting a permit to cut down trees for the Dish will be denied.

Not trying to get into a peeing contest over this (because I could honestly care less), but for those folks saying "Just get the Dish", they need to understand that in some circumstances, that's just not an option.

 

[Bushead]

While I am on that point, most cable cos have ESPN ($2.60 per subscriber), ESPN2 ($2.00), ESPN News ($.70) & ESPN Classic ($.50) all right in the middle of their sacred basic channel lineup.

Those are rough figures from my recollection reading about this topic. Obviously each carrier negotiates their own deal, I was just trying to give a point of reference. I apoligize for not maknig that clear.Here is an article that cites ESPN fees.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/06/commentary...tsbiz/index.htm

 

[ShadowMaster]

I guess it depends on which state you live in, but I know here in Georgia, there are most definitely private neighborhood communities, with covenants banning the dish.

At one time this may have been true, but for MANY years now - it has been illegal for a HOA (Home Owners Association) to ban the installation for Directv Dishes on private homes (as long as you dealing with the standard 18" dish).So if you want one, you can get it. Your HOA/POA can not stop you or fine you for it, regardless of what the community documents say.

 

[AB in DC]

Your figures look accurate to me -- my criticism is whether a majority of cable systems place ESPNews and ESPNC on a basic tier.

For example, I recently moved from Comcast territory to Cox, and both had the two channels on a separate digital tier.

 

[Bushead]

Why should the NFLN just settle for whatever the cable companies are willing to offer? Cable companies propose putting the channel on a sports tier, then why is ESPN (that roughly 20-30% of basic subscribers watch) on the basic tier? While I am on that point, most cable cos have ESPN ($2.60 per subscriber), ESPN2 ($2.00), ESPN News ($.70) & ESPN Classic ($.50) all right in the middle of their sacred basic channel lineup. Shouln't these "sports" channels be on a sports tier as well?

I can't tell if people are just too dumb to get this or if they are ignoring it to better make their anti-cable point, but the ESPN networks show ALL sports. Let me repeat that for those with a reading comprehension issue. The ESPN networks show ALL sports. Networks that just show one sport or one region, like say NBATV, Speed, Fox Sports Pacific, etc, are niche channels that should be in tiers. If there was a new MLBTV channel showing only Major League Baseball, it should be in the tier. When the new Big Ten channel debuts, it should be in the tier. Now, I'm not arguing that all those channels shouldn't be available ala carte. They should. But in today's cable channel environment, they should be in a sports tier. If CNN/SI tries to come back with another all sport channel to challenge ESPN like they did several years ago, it should be on basic cable.

Understand?

Edit to add that I'm not singling out Bushead here. Lots of people have tried to equate ESPN and NFLN in many posts here. It's a ridiculous notion.

I started to reply before your edit, but I think you can lose the "dumb" and "reading comprehension" references. I don't recall insulting you or anyone else in my posts. I expect the same.So, let me ask what cable company you have. Mine carries both Speed and Golf on the basic lineup. Last I checked neither of those channels show "ALL sports".

Understand?

I don't have anything against cable, I am/was trying to pose a couter point to those that are arguing that this is the big bad NFL's fault holding their pore defenseless cable companies hostage.

 

[Bushead]

Another thing I don't get is that my current cable system, Cox, has NFLN on a separate sports & information tier already, and I don't remember any bellyaching from the NFL.

Of course, the tier is only $2 (and includes ESPNClassic, ESPNews, and a dozen other channels), so that may have something to do with it.

Some companies had deals in place from when the NFLN debuted 2 years ago.http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp...cleID=CA6390058

 

[Bushead]

Your figures look accurate to me -- my criticism is whether a majority of cable systems place ESPNews and ESPNC on a basic tier. For example, I recently moved from Comcast territory to Cox, and both had the two channels on a separate digital tier.

OK. I have to look, I honestly don't have any specific reference to back that up. I have read a lot about this topic, highlighting both sides of the coin, and in my reading it seems to be often referred to as more or less fact.Edit to add: It looks like I have mistated this, at least in checking my local cable co - Comcast Philadelphia. Only ESPN & ESPN2 are on the basic tier.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Why should the NFLN just settle for whatever the cable companies are willing to offer? Cable companies propose putting the channel on a sports tier, then why is ESPN (that roughly 20-30% of basic subscribers watch) on the basic tier? While I am on that point, most cable cos have ESPN ($2.60 per subscriber), ESPN2 ($2.00), ESPN News ($.70) & ESPN Classic ($.50) all right in the middle of their sacred basic channel lineup. Shouln't these "sports" channels be on a sports tier as well?

I can't tell if people are just too dumb to get this or if they are ignoring it to better make their anti-cable point, but the ESPN networks show ALL sports. Let me repeat that for those with a reading comprehension issue. The ESPN networks show ALL sports. Networks that just show one sport or one region, like say NBATV, Speed, Fox Sports Pacific, etc, are niche channels that should be in tiers. If there was a new MLBTV channel showing only Major League Baseball, it should be in the tier. When the new Big Ten channel debuts, it should be in the tier. Now, I'm not arguing that all those channels shouldn't be available ala carte. They should. But in today's cable channel environment, they should be in a sports tier. If CNN/SI tries to come back with another all sport channel to challenge ESPN like they did several years ago, it should be on basic cable.

Understand?

Edit to add that I'm not singling out Bushead here. Lots of people have tried to equate ESPN and NFLN in many posts here. It's a ridiculous notion.

I started to reply before your edit, but I think you can lose the "dumb" and "reading comprehension" references. I don't recall insulting you or anyone else in my posts. I expect the same.So, let me ask what cable company you have. Mine carries both Speed and Golf on the basic lineup. Last I checked neither of those channels show "ALL sports".

Understand?

I don't have anything against cable, I am/was trying to pose a couter point to those that are arguing that this is the big bad NFL's fault holding their pour defenseless cable companies hostage.

I have Time Warner, the great Satan of cable companies, in Charlotte. Speed, Golf, NBATV and the Fox Sport regional channels are on my Sports tier, which I pay $6.95 a month for. And if I had my way, the NFLN would be on there too.

 

[ShadowMaster]

I can't tell if people are just too dumb to get this or if they are ignoring it to better make their anti-cable point, but the ESPN networks show ALL sports. Let me repeat that for those with a reading comprehension issue. The ESPN networks show ALL sports. Networks that just show one sport or one region, like say NBATV, Speed, Fox Sports Pacific, etc, are niche channels that should be in tiers. If there was a new MLBTV channel showing only Major League Baseball, it should be in the tier. When the new Big Ten channel debuts, it should be in the tier. Now, I'm not arguing that all those channels shouldn't be available ala carte. They should. But in today's cable channel environment, they should be in a sports tier. If CNN/SI tries to come back with another all sport channel to challenge ESPN like they did several years ago, it should be on basic cable. Understand?

Construx is on the money here. Despite what the NFL may want, you can not compare ESPN with NFLN. ESPN was one of the first cable channels ever and has been around for @ 25 years. They have highlights and coverage of all sports. They belong in the basic tier, because they were around before there was an "extended basic" tier.NFLN covers football. YEAH - I LOVE FOOTBALL! As much as all of you do. I love football more than any other sport by a wide margin. However, Pro football is only on 4 months of the year - 5 if you count preseason and 6 if you count playoffs. What wil they show for the other 6-8 months? Some draft coverage, but otherwise it will be mostly useless fluff. I can see why the big cable companies would not want to overpay for a channel that only has something to watch for 33% of the broadcast year. I can see how the NFL does not look at it this way, but to the consumer - that is the way it is.

 

[Dancing Bear]

Shadowmaster,

I believe that you are incorrect. These sorts of covenants and ordinances exist and they are 100% enforceable!

Your community can enforce the lack of presence of trash in your yard; whether you mow consistently; what sorts of animals can be present; whether you store a boat in the driveway; the kind of siding on your home; the list is long and enforceable and although I cannot be 100% sure, I would believe it could also include dishes depending upon community.

 

[Bushead]

Shadowmaster,

I believe that you are incorrect. These sorts of covenants and ordinances exist and they are 100% enforceable!

Your community can enforce the lack of presence of trash in your yard; whether you mow consistently; what sorts of animals can be present; whether you store a boat in the driveway; the kind of siding on your home; the list is long and enforceable and although I cannot be 100% sure, I would believe it could also include dishes depending upon community.

The government trumps the HOA on this one. If you own the property, no one can prohibit you from putting up a dish.http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

 

[Dancing Bear]

Thanks for the link bushead and the appropriate information.

I sit corrected!

 

[Big Score]

Shadowmaster,

I believe that you are incorrect. These sorts of covenants and ordinances exist and they are 100% enforceable!

Your community can enforce the lack of presence of trash in your yard; whether you mow consistently; what sorts of animals can be present; whether you store a boat in the driveway; the kind of siding on your home; the list is long and enforceable and although I cannot be 100% sure, I would believe it could also include dishes depending upon community.

The government trumps the HOA on this one. If you own the property, no one can prohibit you from putting up a dish.http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Despite the FCC ruling, I guess one of two things are happening (if not both)1) HOA covenats prohibiting the Dish are really unenforceable, but most people are unaware of that.

2) You're in a neighborhood where local city or county codes have been rewritten to make installation of the Dish impossible, or for HOA's to enforce their no Dish clause in their covenant.

The rewriting of local codes & ordinances is done all the time to get around Fedral rules & regulations. I don't know if that's what's actually being done here in Georgia where private neighborhood communities have convenants banning the Dish or not, but it may be.

Or, as I said in point 1, the HOA's are just bluffing.

 

[Bushead]

Why should the NFLN just settle for whatever the cable companies are willing to offer? Cable companies propose putting the channel on a sports tier, then why is ESPN (that roughly 20-30% of basic subscribers watch) on the basic tier? While I am on that point, most cable cos have ESPN ($2.60 per subscriber), ESPN2 ($2.00), ESPN News ($.70) & ESPN Classic ($.50) all right in the middle of their sacred basic channel lineup. Shouln't these "sports" channels be on a sports tier as well?

I can't tell if people are just too dumb to get this or if they are ignoring it to better make their anti-cable point, but the ESPN networks show ALL sports. Let me repeat that for those with a reading comprehension issue. The ESPN networks show ALL sports. Networks that just show one sport or one region, like say NBATV, Speed, Fox Sports Pacific, etc, are niche channels that should be in tiers. If there was a new MLBTV channel showing only Major League Baseball, it should be in the tier. When the new Big Ten channel debuts, it should be in the tier. Now, I'm not arguing that all those channels shouldn't be available ala carte. They should. But in today's cable channel environment, they should be in a sports tier. If CNN/SI tries to come back with another all sport channel to challenge ESPN like they did several years ago, it should be on basic cable.

Understand?

Edit to add that I'm not singling out Bushead here. Lots of people have tried to equate ESPN and NFLN in many posts here. It's a ridiculous notion.

I started to reply before your edit, but I think you can lose the "dumb" and "reading comprehension" references. I don't recall insulting you or anyone else in my posts. I expect the same.So, let me ask what cable company you have. Mine carries both Speed and Golf on the basic lineup. Last I checked neither of those channels show "ALL sports".

Understand?

I don't have anything against cable, I am/was trying to pose a couter point to those that are arguing that this is the big bad NFL's fault holding their pour defenseless cable companies hostage.

I have Time Warner, the great Satan of cable companies, in Charlotte. Speed, Golf, NBATV and the Fox Sport regional channels are on my Sports tier, which I pay $6.95 a month for. And if I had my way, the NFLN would be on there too.

While I certainly can't dispute what you recieve in your home, with the exception of NBATV the Time Warner channel listing for Charlotte would dispute what you are saying.From Time Warner's listing the following sports programs are part of the standard package: Versus, ESPN Classic, ESPN2, Speed, Golf, ESPN, & Fox Sports South

http://www.timewarnercable.com/CustomerSer...=&CLUID=188

This listing could of course be innacurate and/or different than what you recieve. Nonetheless, I think the NFL has a decent case to say they belong in the standard tier with those channels.

 

[PMENFAN]

I can't tell if people are just too dumb to get this or if they are ignoring it to better make their anti-cable point, but the ESPN networks show ALL sports. Let me repeat that for those with a reading comprehension issue. The ESPN networks show ALL sports. Networks that just show one sport or one region, like say NBATV, Speed, Fox Sports Pacific, etc, are niche channels that should be in tiers. If there was a new MLBTV channel showing only Major League Baseball, it should be in the tier. When the new Big Ten channel debuts, it should be in the tier. Now, I'm not arguing that all those channels shouldn't be available ala carte. They should. But in today's cable channel environment, they should be in a sports tier. If CNN/SI tries to come back with another all sport channel to challenge ESPN like they did several years ago, it should be on basic cable. Understand?

Construx is on the money here. Despite what the NFL may want, you can not compare ESPN with NFLN. ESPN was one of the first cable channels ever and has been around for @ 25 years. They have highlights and coverage of all sports. They belong in the basic tier, because they were around before there was an "extended basic" tier.NFLN covers football. YEAH - I LOVE FOOTBALL! As much as all of you do. I love football more than any other sport by a wide margin. However, Pro football is only on 4 months of the year - 5 if you count preseason and 6 if you count playoffs. What wil they show for the other 6-8 months? Some draft coverage, but otherwise it will be mostly useless fluff. I can see why the big cable companies would not want to overpay for a channel that only has something to watch for 33% of the broadcast year. I can see how the NFL does not look at it this way, but to the consumer - that is the way it is.

But, for that 33% of the year, and even during the off season, it's a popular channel where available. None of the other channels that you're companing it to come close to the popularity of the NFL network, or the ratings an NFL game brings. That's the other side of the coin. Maybe you don't care about the 'fluff' during the off season, but obviously other people do, because even during the off season, it's a ppopular cable channel. People who have it want to watch it. The WSJ article I posted earlier shoed 7.8% of sets with the NFL channel available tuned to the Thursday games. With all the other options available, on a Thursday night, nearly 8% on average chose to watch these crappy games. Imagine if they were good games? Imagine if Thursday football were an institution in place for years? The NFLs point is that during peak periods, their channel is as popular, in fact ore popular, than nost other channels out there, and hence they should be paid accordingly, and have access to they eyes that the most popular channels do. During off peak times, it competes favorably with the most popular channels. The statistical data backs them up. Opinions aside, the stastical data tells the story. There is nobody who wants every channel they get in the basic tier. Everybody subscribing to cable is subsidizing somebody elses interest. Becusase football fans will generate a 7.8% peak rating on a new channel, cable operators want it in a premium package, because it increases profits. That's what it comes down to. Blame the NFL for profiteering, but that's the bottom line. The cable companies want to profiteer as well. The NFL wants fair value for their product, and is asking for similar value of similarly rated channels. It's not like they pulled the number out of the air, and said, "this is what we want". They did their homework, ran with the channel to see where the ratings were, and then went for the contracts. Frankly, I admire the way they've went about it. They could have acquiesed, and merely sold to a channel already in wide distribution and taken diluted value. They didn't. They stuck with their initial plan. You can knock them and say they're asking you for more money to see what you used to see for free. Patently false. They're holding out to see that you don't have to pay more to see what you've always see for what you pay for in basic cable packages. They're going to show games on Thursday. They're expanding their business. It's what businesses do. They expand. You go into business, and invest, to make more money. You don't invest to idle your money. You invest the 3/4 billion to own a franchise to turn it into more. This is not just a mom and pop business, this is the biggest of all sports businesses.Your analogy to ESPN is interesting. Based on your premise, when ESPN came out, it should have been in the premium tier, which at the time was limited to HBO, when HBO came on at 5:00 in the evening. There was niche programming only. I'll say it. ESPN sucked when it started, but I still watched, because it was better than most other. It didn't all suck, but by and large, it sucked as a channel. Rodeo is the big thing I remember in the early days, and sports talk. I wasn't a rodeo fan, but I watched a lot of rodeo in my days of about 9-12, when ESPN first came out, because it was on ESPN, a lot. No major league sports. Its ratings were in the tank. It was the epitome of niche programming. Heck, 90% of the channels on now are niche channels. Should they all be in various premium tiers? I'm supporting the cable providers long standing argument against a la carte subscribership. They argue against it, because lesser watched programming would not survive. They package the lesser watched channels with the popular ones, to subsidize the ones that nobody wants, su support diversity. But, when a channel that people really want comes along, llike the NFLN comes along, they want to really put it up there, because they know they can make more money. Their argument for diversification through subsidy goes away. They want it both ways. That's what I'm opposed to. They want the cake and to eat it as well. I guess my understanding of the deceitfulness of the cable industry as a whole, and not looking at this one issue gives me a different view on the picture. I've been lobbying for years for a la carte programming, and the diversification argument has been the pat answer. It is a solid argument, if they'd stick to it. This channel is immensely popular, by any measure in the cable world. Calling it niche because it broadcasts football does it no justice. Look at the rankings. It's popular where available. As far as antitrust goes, the antitrust exemption has no danger of going away. Professional sports leagues aren't like retail chanin competition. Look at baseball. Baseball has the same exemption, but a different model. Basseball struggles, because of the lack of balance. Small market teams cannot compete. The teams work together, acting as a unit, but competing against one another. One franchise doesn't do well by the others failing, because then there is nobody else to play. Conversely, in retail, one entity excels when the others falter. Antitrust in professional sports fosters competition withinn the league, by allowing the different owners to work together to make the league stronger and more competitive. The NfL is frankly the model of anti-trust fostering strength and parity in the league. The league has never been stronger, nor more a more even distribution of talent. I look at the field, and I say 5 teams in the AFC (everybody but the Colts) and either the Saints or Eagles could with this year. Of course, I think it'll be the Pats, but that''s another thread. That's the antitrust exemption working to a T. The business entity is strong. The sub-units of the entity are very strong, and competition is vibrant. No way does Congress see a reason to take that away. The very reason for it's existence is working masterfully. Nobody is hurt by it. NObody is nosing. Gains that would not exist without are there.

 

[BigJim®]

During football season I rarely watch ESPN at all. NFL Network is great.

The network is what, three years old? I remember ESPN at that age. George Grande and Bob Ley showing bowling clips on cheesy sets worse than your local news. They've come a long way, but NFL has a nice product out of the gate and they are already showing live games in year three. Sure, the games they had might not of been great match-ups, but I'd imagine CBS, FOX, NBC, and ESPN, who paid bags of money for their TV contracts, want the best games. I think NFL network is just getting their feet wet for when the contracts expire. When those deals are up, I think you'll see more games on NFL network. Maybe PPV? Who knows.

EXACTLY!Those of you used to getting your NFL games at home for free (or within your cable/satellite basic package) better start changing your thought process and opening your wallet. You're going to either have to start watching games at home with friends and split the PPV cost or head to the sports bar where your favorite adult beverage will increase in price by $.25 to $.50 in order to pay for the PPV broadcasts in their establishment.

It suxor, but it's coming.

No, it isn't. Aside from it being unequivocal suicide to reduce the league's viewership to the degree PPV would, *any* attempts by the NFL to make their product generally unavailable to the public could possibly result in a repeal of the league's existing antitrust exemption, which stems from the passage of the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. Even the existing NFLN-Cable impasse has caused a minor push to strip the league of its exemption. Of course, the product remains generally available so there is no way Senator Specter can get support to get this through at this time, but that would definitely change if the product became generally unavailable. While there may be a handful of teams that would not mind the lifting of the exemption, so they can negotiate lucrative broadcasting deals for their own team, there are far more small-mid market teams who benefit greatly from the NFL's existing pooling of all NFL teams into a package deal with broadcasters.

I don't doubt what you say, but why are the networks losing money hand over fist on the NFL games now if they can simply put the league over a barrel and say you have to let us broadcast games at our terms or you guys get your anti trust revoked? For the privilege of broadcasting pro football, I read ABC could lose as much as $100 million a year.

In short, because they would be outbid by another network. Any collusion by the various networks to establish price fixing would itself be subject to antitrust laws.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Why should the NFLN just settle for whatever the cable companies are willing to offer? Cable companies propose putting the channel on a sports tier, then why is ESPN (that roughly 20-30% of basic subscribers watch) on the basic tier? While I am on that point, most cable cos have ESPN ($2.60 per subscriber), ESPN2 ($2.00), ESPN News ($.70) & ESPN Classic ($.50) all right in the middle of their sacred basic channel lineup. Shouln't these "sports" channels be on a sports tier as well?

I can't tell if people are just too dumb to get this or if they are ignoring it to better make their anti-cable point, but the ESPN networks show ALL sports. Let me repeat that for those with a reading comprehension issue. The ESPN networks show ALL sports. Networks that just show one sport or one region, like say NBATV, Speed, Fox Sports Pacific, etc, are niche channels that should be in tiers. If there was a new MLBTV channel showing only Major League Baseball, it should be in the tier. When the new Big Ten channel debuts, it should be in the tier. Now, I'm not arguing that all those channels shouldn't be available ala carte. They should. But in today's cable channel environment, they should be in a sports tier. If CNN/SI tries to come back with another all sport channel to challenge ESPN like they did several years ago, it should be on basic cable.

Understand?

Edit to add that I'm not singling out Bushead here. Lots of people have tried to equate ESPN and NFLN in many posts here. It's a ridiculous notion.

I started to reply before your edit, but I think you can lose the "dumb" and "reading comprehension" references. I don't recall insulting you or anyone else in my posts. I expect the same.So, let me ask what cable company you have. Mine carries both Speed and Golf on the basic lineup. Last I checked neither of those channels show "ALL sports".

Understand?

I don't have anything against cable, I am/was trying to pose a couter point to those that are arguing that this is the big bad NFL's fault holding their pour defenseless cable companies hostage.

I have Time Warner, the great Satan of cable companies, in Charlotte. Speed, Golf, NBATV and the Fox Sport regional channels are on my Sports tier, which I pay $6.95 a month for. And if I had my way, the NFLN would be on there too.

While I certainly can't dispute what you recieve in your home, with the exception of NBATV the Time Warner channel listing for Charlotte would dispute what you are saying.From Time Warner's listing the following sports programs are part of the standard package: Versus, ESPN Classic, ESPN2, Speed, Golf, ESPN, & Fox Sports South

http://www.timewarnercable.com/CustomerSer...=&CLUID=188

This listing could of course be innacurate and/or different than what you recieve. Nonetheless, I think the NFL has a decent case to say they belong in the standard tier with those channels.

My bad, I was confusing Speed with Fuel. And I forgot where Golf Channel was. But here is my sports tier:140 Fuel

141 NBA TV

142 The Tennis Channel

143 Game Show Network

144 FCS Atlantic

145 FCS Central

146 FCS Pacific

147 Fox Soccer Channel

148 ESPN News

I didn't even know there was a Tennis Channel, much less that I had it, LOL. And I would say that of course Fox Sports South is basic because it's my region. Someone in California would presumably have Fox Sports Pacific as basic and then Atlantic, Central and South as Sports Tier. And let's be honest, here in Charlotte the Speed channel could be considered a worthy basic channel as well.

I also noticed you threw in ESPN 2 and ESPN Classic when I already stated that they should be Basic because they cover all sports.

I still disagree with your opinion and think that Time Warner here in Charlotte has already shown that in their setup that you linked and I pasted.

Here are the one sport/league/region channels:

Speed

Fuel

Golf

NBATV

Tennis Channel

Fox Soccer Channel

Fox Sports South

Fox Sports Atlantic

Fox Sports Central

Fox Sports Pacific

Of those, Speed, Golf and Fox Sports South are basic. I would argue that because Charlotte is in the South, Fox Sports South should be basic and I could see that because Charlotte is such a NASCAR hotbed, Speed could be basic as well. So the only thing I disagree with is the Golf Channel being on basic.

Now, if there was a MLBTV channel, where should it go? Sports Tier

If there was a Big Ten channel, where should it go? Sports Tier

If there was an ACC Channel, I could see it being on Basic here in Charlotte, but not in St. Louis or something.

Can someone else chime in here? It looks to me like other than a mistake in putting the Golf Channel on basic, Time Warner is practicing what they are preaching regarding the NFLN here in Charlotte.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Hey PMENFAN,

I don't want to quote your whole post but again you make some good points. But I still think there is a big issue with the NFL: If they want it on basic cable because they think it deserves to be on basic cable and because they want more eyeballs for advertisers, then why do they allow some cable companies, like Cox, to put it in a premium tier?

 

[Spiderman]

Who said that NFLN was asking $8 per household? The reports I saw were in the $2 range at most.TMQ, if you're reading this:

Can somebody explain what this means ? For Comcast to put the NFL Network on basic cable, what happens to people who have only the basic package ?How is Comcast getting away with this as well ? If they had been awarded the NFL Thursday/Saturday package, would they have put this on their basic package ??

 

[Spiderman]

I think that the NFL Network is an absolute dismal affair.I have no way of accessing it due to my cable company, and I will not pay for the extra Sports Channel that it would require anyway for 5 or 6 games.It just shows that they are trying to get every last $ that they can without regard to the long-term impact on their fans or the market.Heck on Thanksgiving Day, there wasn't even a bar open within an hour drive of me to watch it. What kind of garbage is that?I pay enough to watch the standard games with all of the advertising $; why is that not enough?

I guess I'm confused by the NFL's position on this.I know they believe (or are gambling at least) that most cable companies will carry the NFL Network on their basic packages in the short-term future, but what gets me is the exclusive deal they have for the Sunday NFL Ticket. First off, how is this even legal ? Secondly, is DirecTV paying so much money for the rights that the NFL would not consider allowing companies to also sell the package ? How many customers are they losing out who don't have DirecTV, but who would get Sunday Ticket if it was available on Comast ?

 

[Bushead]

Hey PMENFAN,

I don't want to quote your whole post but again you make some good points. But I still think there is a big issue with the NFL: If they want it on basic cable because they think it deserves to be on basic cable and because they want more eyeballs for advertisers, then why do they allow some cable companies, like Cox, to put it in a premium tier?

Construx, check one of my posts above to abreacher, I had a link that was specific about Cox and NFLN. Cox (and others) signed up with the NFLN at or near its inception and reached a deal to put it on their premium tier. That was of course before the NFL started broadcasting its own games and had less leverage. Edit to stick in the link: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp...cleID=CA6390058

PMENFAN, nice well thought out & reasoned post

 

[PMENFAN]

I think that the NFL Network is an absolute dismal affair.I have no way of accessing it due to my cable company, and I will not pay for the extra Sports Channel that it would require anyway for 5 or 6 games.It just shows that they are trying to get every last $ that they can without regard to the long-term impact on their fans or the market.Heck on Thanksgiving Day, there wasn't even a bar open within an hour drive of me to watch it. What kind of garbage is that?I pay enough to watch the standard games with all of the advertising $; why is that not enough?

I guess I'm confused by the NFL's position on this.I know they believe (or are gambling at least) that most cable companies will carry the NFL Network on their basic packages in the short-term future, but what gets me is the exclusive deal they have for the Sunday NFL Ticket. First off, how is this even legal ? Secondly, is DirecTV paying so much money for the rights that the NFL would not consider allowing companies to also sell the package ? How many customers are they losing out who don't have DirecTV, but who would get Sunday Ticket if it was available on Comast ?

That is something else that I've asked repeatedly about, citing the same reasons you say. I honestly think DirecTV is making very little, if any, money on the package. I think it's all NFL money. What does DTV get? Subscribers. The ticket would be so much huge if it were available on different outlest. Again, it may have been a price issue. Other outlets didn't bit on the price? Also, when the ticket came out, the NFLN was in the works already. Would widespread distribution of the ticket have diluted the value of NFLN, or at least lessened their bargaining power? Probably. That's my thought anyway.Construxboy. I can't say why they did it. Scale and price? Maybe the % of Cox subscribers that are above the basic level? That's an interesting point. From what I can find though Cox is limited to sections of Arizona? Small potatoes in the grand scheme? A penetration scheme? I honestly can't theorize on what their plan is there, but I'd read penetration, or just a sacrifice, because of the scale.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Hey PMENFAN,

I don't want to quote your whole post but again you make some good points. But I still think there is a big issue with the NFL: If they want it on basic cable because they think it deserves to be on basic cable and because they want more eyeballs for advertisers, then why do they allow some cable companies, like Cox, to put it in a premium tier?

Construx, check one of my posts above to abreacher, I had a link that was specific about Cox and NFLN. Cox (and others) signed up with the NFLN at or near its inception and reached a deal to put it on their premium tier. That was of course before the NFL started broadcasting its own games and had less leverage. Edit to stick in the link: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp...cleID=CA6390058

PMENFAN, nice well thought out & reasoned post

Thanks Bushead. I figured it was because they got in early. But you have to admit (well, you don't have to) that it hurts their argument that they need/have/deserve to have the channel on basic for Time Warner. It seems like they're just trying to put the screws to TWC. Not saying it's illegal or anything, just that I think the average person aware of those facts would question the disparity.

 

[NinerK]

Heck on Thanksgiving Day, there wasn't even a bar open within an hour drive of me to watch it. What kind of garbage is that?

Your town suxor...Our high school football coach opened a bar in town and on Thanksgiving AND Christmas Eve you can go hang with people who graduated from our high school for the last 20 years. It's like a re-union every year

 

[NinerK]

All this talk is a moot point. The NFL-N needs to do 2 things and everything else will fall into place:

1. Fire Bryant Gumbel (I know, DUH!)

2. Move the game to FRIDAY nights!!!!!!

Having the friday night game would give the teams an extra day to prepare/rest and give us fans a great way to fire up the weekend.

Don't most high school football seasons end before or around Thanksgiving? Besides, my wife (and to a lesser extent, me) takes her Thursday TV seriously. I already spend all Sunday watching Football and Monday Night; watching the Niner game on Thursday caused a serious amount of unwanted tension in the house this year.....

 

[Bushead]

Hey PMENFAN,

I don't want to quote your whole post but again you make some good points. But I still think there is a big issue with the NFL: If they want it on basic cable because they think it deserves to be on basic cable and because they want more eyeballs for advertisers, then why do they allow some cable companies, like Cox, to put it in a premium tier?

Construx, check one of my posts above to abreacher, I had a link that was specific about Cox and NFLN. Cox (and others) signed up with the NFLN at or near its inception and reached a deal to put it on their premium tier. That was of course before the NFL started broadcasting its own games and had less leverage. Edit to stick in the link: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp...cleID=CA6390058

PMENFAN, nice well thought out & reasoned post

Thanks Bushead. I figured it was because they got in early. But you have to admit (well, you don't have to) that it hurts their argument that they need/have/deserve to have the channel on basic for Time Warner. It seems like they're just trying to put the screws to TWC. Not saying it's illegal or anything, just that I think the average person aware of those facts would question the disparity.

Oh, I will readily admit that. I think this thread has illustrated that this is far from a black and white issue, it largely depends on where/who you are getting your information from. How many people have the information presented in this thread? I think the whole thing is bad for both sides from a public perception viewpoint, but to a large extent they both deserve it.The viewers and fans are the ones getting the screwing here, over two mega companies that are playing a greedy game of poker. I honestly just jumped in this thread because it seemed it was missing some leavity on the side of the NFL. I think they are clearly both culpable here.

Believe me, I know how you feel. Just a quick OT, I live outside of Philly and my house is served by 0 cable companies (I basically live on a farm). Well, since comcast owns sportsnet and has interest in and televises the Flyers, Sixers and Phillies, and will not sell the channel or sports broadcasts of any of those 3 teams to any satellite, I get to see none of my home team sports (except of course the Eagles where I am at every home game). Even when the game is on ESPN, if Comcast carries the game it is blacked out. I am stuck in the middle of a pushing match between Directv and Comcast.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Hey PMENFAN,

I don't want to quote your whole post but again you make some good points. But I still think there is a big issue with the NFL: If they want it on basic cable because they think it deserves to be on basic cable and because they want more eyeballs for advertisers, then why do they allow some cable companies, like Cox, to put it in a premium tier?

Construx, check one of my posts above to abreacher, I had a link that was specific about Cox and NFLN. Cox (and others) signed up with the NFLN at or near its inception and reached a deal to put it on their premium tier. That was of course before the NFL started broadcasting its own games and had less leverage. Edit to stick in the link: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp...cleID=CA6390058

PMENFAN, nice well thought out & reasoned post

Thanks Bushead. I figured it was because they got in early. But you have to admit (well, you don't have to) that it hurts their argument that they need/have/deserve to have the channel on basic for Time Warner. It seems like they're just trying to put the screws to TWC. Not saying it's illegal or anything, just that I think the average person aware of those facts would question the disparity.

Oh, I will readily admit that. I think this thread has illustrated that this is far from a black and white issue, it largely depends on where/who you are getting your information from. How many people have the information presented in this thread? I think the whole thing is bad for both sides from a public perception viewpoint, but to a large extent they both deserve it.The viewers and fans are the ones getting the screwing here, over two mega companies that are playing a greedy game of poker. I honestly just jumped in this thread because it seemed it was missing some leavity on the side of the NFL. I think they are clearly both culpable here.

Believe me, I know how you feel. Just a quick OT, I live outside of Philly and my house is served by 0 cable companies (I basically live on a farm). Well, since comcast owns sportsnet and has interest in and televises the Flyers, Sixers and Phillies, and will not sell the channel or sports broadcasts of any of those 3 teams to any satellite, I get to see none of my home team sports (except of course the Eagles where I am at every home game). Even when the game is on ESPN, if Comcast carries the game it is blacked out. I am stuck in the middle of a pushing match between Directv and Comcast.

That we can readily agree on. :(

 

[shadow2k]

get a sub-par service (my HD quality is superior to that of DirectTV's "HDLite" crap),

Ummm.....not being able (or willing) to get a DirecTV dish installed might have something to do with this, don't you think?

Do you know what HDLite is?DirectTV and The Dish both broadcast a lower resolution picture than I can currently receive with TWC. They do this to save on the cost of bandwidth, because it's cheaper to send you less information (less pixels). It is referred to as HDLite. We're talking about 1280 horizontal lines of resolution with HDLite, compared to up to 1920 horizontal lines with TWC. My HD set is a top of the line 1080p, and can show 1920 horizontal lines without having to "upscale" the picture from a lower resolution...which degrades the quality of the picture. That is what would happen if I had satellite. I'd get a lower resolution picture, my TV would have to "blow it up" so that it fits the screen, and that would be grainy compared to what I currently enjoy.

Imagine taking a photo in your wallet and blowing it up to a 6 x 10. The picture becomes grainy, the edges are no longer defined, and if it were a moving picture...you know, like with football...the motion becomes blurred. Hell, even easier way to do this. Run over to youtube, and check out one of the videos. Looks ok, but it's kind of small. Now click that button in the bottom right corner that blows it up to full screen. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

I would rather stick an antenna on the top of my house and just get over the air signals rather than suffer through satellite's HDLite crap all the time. If I wanted a substandard picture, I wouldn't have bothered to spend thousands of dollars on my TV.