Just talked to the cable company (WoW) (1 Viewer)

[montana_grizzly_bears]

Well actually wife was the one that called cause she wanted to see the game tonight since we both have players going. WOW (wide open west cable) associate said that NFL network wanted 2.6 Billion dollars form the cable company to have the rights to show 50 games over the next 6 years. Thats right 5.2 million bucks for each game. Anyway we called NFL network after that and all we got was a message saying that if we wanted to see the games that we could switch to satelite. Dont know if this is a honda or if its something new, but I'll stick with watching games from sportsline gamecenters for the next 6 years instead of my cable bill going up more than it already will.

~crag

 

[InTheLoo]

Went through all this before Thanksgiving. NFL demanding high price as well as guarantee that NFLN is on basic cable. This means the millions of subscribers that dont want NFLN would be paying an extra buck or more per month just for the privilege. NFL knows they'd get higher premium on advertising and reach larger audience on basic. Cable companies would say welcome aboard but with a price that isnt in the top 5 of channel contracts, and a pay channel status for their customers that desire it. They still arent happy about the network/satellite/Sunday Ticket thing either so they arent bending.

For once it aint all the Cable Weasels' faults.

 

[hellz_fireflies]

Well actually wife was the one that called cause she wanted to see the game tonight since we both have players going. WOW (wide open west cable) associate said that NFL network wanted 2.6 Billion dollars form the cable company to have the rights to show 50 games over the next 6 years. Thats right 5.2 million bucks for each game. Anyway we called NFL network after that and all we got was a message saying that if we wanted to see the games that we could switch to satelite. Dont know if this is a honda or if its something new, but I'll stick with watching games from sportsline gamecenters for the next 6 years instead of my cable bill going up more than it already will.~crag

Don't know where ya live but NFL network is on free for a week..believe turner and another cable sys tem.

 

[Limp Ditka]

GB Comcast

 

[NoFBinLA]

Well actually wife was the one that called cause she wanted to see the game tonight since we both have players going. WOW (wide open west cable) associate said that NFL network wanted 2.6 Billion dollars form the cable company to have the rights to show 50 games over the next 6 years. Thats right 5.2 million bucks for each game. Anyway we called NFL network after that and all we got was a message saying that if we wanted to see the games that we could switch to satelite. Dont know if this is a honda or if its something new, but I'll stick with watching games from sportsline gamecenters for the next 6 years instead of my cable bill going up more than it already will.~crag

Don't know where ya live but NFL network is on free for a week..believe turner and another cable sys tem.

I thought that started next week?

 

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

GB Comcast

My cable switched from Time Warner to Comcast this week and I don't get NFL Network. My friends and family in the suburbs of Philly have had Comcast for years and do get the NFL NetworkThis sucks!!!

 

[AcousticNut]

GB Comcast

My cable switched from Time Warner to Comcast this week and I don't get NFL Network. My friends and family in the suburbs of Philly have had Comcast for years and do get the NFL NetworkThis sucks!!!

Our area just switched from Adelphia to Comcast, so I'm currently enjoying my first NFL network game this evening. My wife got the digital cable package when our provider switched just so that I could have NFL network.

 

[Pipes]

Went through all this before Thanksgiving. NFL demanding high price as well as guarantee that NFLN is on basic cable. This means the millions of subscribers that dont want NFLN would be paying an extra buck or more per month just for the privilege. NFL knows they'd get higher premium on advertising and reach larger audience on basic. Cable companies would say welcome aboard but with a price that isnt in the top 5 of channel contracts, and a pay channel status for their customers that desire it. They still arent happy about the network/satellite/Sunday Ticket thing either so they arent bending.For once it aint all the Cable Weasels' faults.

I disagree. How can Dish Network & Directv include it in their base package which is $39.99 in Directv's case and I believe even less for Dish Network? Why can they afford that channel when some cable companies can't?

 

[dparker713]

Went through all this before Thanksgiving. NFL demanding high price as well as guarantee that NFLN is on basic cable. This means the millions of subscribers that dont want NFLN would be paying an extra buck or more per month just for the privilege. NFL knows they'd get higher premium on advertising and reach larger audience on basic. Cable companies would say welcome aboard but with a price that isnt in the top 5 of channel contracts, and a pay channel status for their customers that desire it. They still arent happy about the network/satellite/Sunday Ticket thing either so they arent bending.For once it aint all the Cable Weasels' faults.

I disagree. How can Dish Network & Directv include it in their base package which is $39.99 in Directv's case and I believe even less for Dish Network? Why can they afford that channel when some cable companies can't?

Because Ruppert Murdock is willing to run Dish Network at a loss or very low profit margin in order to gain market share. Basically, he's havign other sections of his company subsidize your viewing habits.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Went through all this before Thanksgiving. NFL demanding high price as well as guarantee that NFLN is on basic cable. This means the millions of subscribers that dont want NFLN would be paying an extra buck or more per month just for the privilege. NFL knows they'd get higher premium on advertising and reach larger audience on basic. Cable companies would say welcome aboard but with a price that isnt in the top 5 of channel contracts, and a pay channel status for their customers that desire it. They still arent happy about the network/satellite/Sunday Ticket thing either so they arent bending.

For once it aint all the Cable Weasels' faults.

I disagree. How can Dish Network & Directv include it in their base package which is $39.99 in Directv's case and I believe even less for Dish Network? Why can they afford that channel when some cable companies can't?

The issue is cost. Spokesman Mark Harrad says Time Warner would have to pay $140 million a year to provide the channel to all 13.5 million of its subscribers in 33 states, placing it in the top five most expensive cable networks. He said the company would prefer to carry the network as part of a premium service -- not at the rate of 70 cents per customer per month the network is reportedly seeking."If we put all expensive sports programming on the standard tier of service, that would increase our rates to all of our customers, even those who didn't particularly care about football or these games," said Harrad.

NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky counters that a number of other cable companies as well as the two main satellite providers are "happily" carrying the network, which is jointly owned by the league's 32 team owners.

Sorry, I gotta disagree with some of you. Its your cable companies. 70 cents a month, thats what it comes down to, a pack of gum per customer per month. Luckily I switched to Directv a couple of years ago. So long Comcast

 

[bentley]

Went through all this before Thanksgiving. NFL demanding high price as well as guarantee that NFLN is on basic cable. This means the millions of subscribers that dont want NFLN would be paying an extra buck or more per month just for the privilege. NFL knows they'd get higher premium on advertising and reach larger audience on basic. Cable companies would say welcome aboard but with a price that isnt in the top 5 of channel contracts, and a pay channel status for their customers that desire it. They still arent happy about the network/satellite/Sunday Ticket thing either so they arent bending.

For once it aint all the Cable Weasels' faults.

I disagree. How can Dish Network & Directv include it in their base package which is $39.99 in Directv's case and I believe even less for Dish Network? Why can they afford that channel when some cable companies can't?

The issue is cost. Spokesman Mark Harrad says Time Warner would have to pay $140 million a year to provide the channel to all 13.5 million of its subscribers in 33 states, placing it in the top five most expensive cable networks. He said the company would prefer to carry the network as part of a premium service -- not at the rate of 70 cents per customer per month the network is reportedly seeking."If we put all expensive sports programming on the standard tier of service, that would increase our rates to all of our customers, even those who didn't particularly care about football or these games," said Harrad.

NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky counters that a number of other cable companies as well as the two main satellite providers are "happily" carrying the network, which is jointly owned by the league's 32 team owners.

Sorry, I gotta disagree with some of you. Its your cable companies. 70 cents a month, thats what it comes down to, a pack of gum per customer per month. Luckily I switched to Directv a couple of years ago. So long Comcast

The NFL network has no business being one of the five most expensive cable networks. That's the bottom line.

 

[Xenopax]

The NFL network has no business being one of the five most expensive cable networks. That's the bottom line.

The worst part is, if the NFL wins and gets all the games on NFLN they will jack up the price, and there is little anyone can do as long as football remains popular.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Went through all this before Thanksgiving. NFL demanding high price as well as guarantee that NFLN is on basic cable. This means the millions of subscribers that dont want NFLN would be paying an extra buck or more per month just for the privilege. NFL knows they'd get higher premium on advertising and reach larger audience on basic. Cable companies would say welcome aboard but with a price that isnt in the top 5 of channel contracts, and a pay channel status for their customers that desire it. They still arent happy about the network/satellite/Sunday Ticket thing either so they arent bending.

For once it aint all the Cable Weasels' faults.

I disagree. How can Dish Network & Directv include it in their base package which is $39.99 in Directv's case and I believe even less for Dish Network? Why can they afford that channel when some cable companies can't?

The issue is cost. Spokesman Mark Harrad says Time Warner would have to pay $140 million a year to provide the channel to all 13.5 million of its subscribers in 33 states, placing it in the top five most expensive cable networks. He said the company would prefer to carry the network as part of a premium service -- not at the rate of 70 cents per customer per month the network is reportedly seeking."If we put all expensive sports programming on the standard tier of service, that would increase our rates to all of our customers, even those who didn't particularly care about football or these games," said Harrad.

NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky counters that a number of other cable companies as well as the two main satellite providers are "happily" carrying the network, which is jointly owned by the league's 32 team owners.

Sorry, I gotta disagree with some of you. Its your cable companies. 70 cents a month, thats what it comes down to, a pack of gum per customer per month. Luckily I switched to Directv a couple of years ago. So long Comcast

The NFL network has no business being one of the five most expensive cable networks. That's the bottom line.

I couldnt disagree more. If you asked all the people that wanted the NFL network if they would pay 70 cents a month for it you know they would. The problem is the cable companies will never let you the consumer go ala carte. TNT is a top 5 and I would sooner pay 70 cents for the NFL then for TNT.

 

[dparker713]

The NFL network has no business being one of the five most expensive cable networks. That's the bottom line.

The worst part is, if the NFL wins and gets all the games on NFLN they will jack up the price, and there is little anyone can do as long as football remains popular.

Congress certainly has the ability to change things. The NFL has avoided any anti-trust litigation in part because the in market games have remained on free tv. With them now controlling both the pproduct and part of the distribution, the league is skirting awfully close to some legal no-nos.

 

[NoFBinLA]

I couldnt disagree more. If you asked all the people that wanted the NFL network if they would pay 70 cents a month for it you know they would. The problem is the cable companies will never let you the consumer go ala carte. TNT is a top 5 and I would sooner pay 70 cents for the NFL then for TNT.

That number of people might be a small percemtage compared to overall cable customers.I'd be interested to see a study on those numbers. We might be surprised -- given where we are right now, our perspective could be skewed.

There was a period of my life I didn't give a rat's ### about the NFL and wouldn't have wanted to pay .70 for it.

Though given a choice, I wouldn't have the 6 Hispanic channels I am forced to have taking space up on my cable spectrum, nor the shopping networks.

 

[TinHat]

Went through all this before Thanksgiving. NFL demanding high price as well as guarantee that NFLN is on basic cable. This means the millions of subscribers that dont want NFLN would be paying an extra buck or more per month just for the privilege. NFL knows they'd get higher premium on advertising and reach larger audience on basic. Cable companies would say welcome aboard but with a price that isnt in the top 5 of channel contracts, and a pay channel status for their customers that desire it. They still arent happy about the network/satellite/Sunday Ticket thing either so they arent bending.

For once it aint all the Cable Weasels' faults.

I disagree. How can Dish Network & Directv include it in their base package which is $39.99 in Directv's case and I believe even less for Dish Network? Why can they afford that channel when some cable companies can't?

The issue is cost. Spokesman Mark Harrad says Time Warner would have to pay $140 million a year to provide the channel to all 13.5 million of its subscribers in 33 states, placing it in the top five most expensive cable networks. He said the company would prefer to carry the network as part of a premium service -- not at the rate of 70 cents per customer per month the network is reportedly seeking."If we put all expensive sports programming on the standard tier of service, that would increase our rates to all of our customers, even those who didn't particularly care about football or these games," said Harrad.

NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky counters that a number of other cable companies as well as the two main satellite providers are "happily" carrying the network, which is jointly owned by the league's 32 team owners.

Sorry, I gotta disagree with some of you. Its your cable companies. 70 cents a month, thats what it comes down to, a pack of gum per customer per month. Luckily I switched to Directv a couple of years ago. So long Comcast

The NFL network has no business being one of the five most expensive cable networks. That's the bottom line.

I couldnt disagree more. If you asked all the people that wanted the NFL network if they would pay 70 cents a month for it you know they would. The problem is the cable companies will never let you the consumer go ala carte. TNT is a top 5 and I would sooner pay 70 cents for the NFL then for TNT.

With an ala carte setup, the NFL would want a lot more than 70 cents.

 

[Capella]

Went through all this before Thanksgiving. NFL demanding high price as well as guarantee that NFLN is on basic cable. This means the millions of subscribers that dont want NFLN would be paying an extra buck or more per month just for the privilege. NFL knows they'd get higher premium on advertising and reach larger audience on basic. Cable companies would say welcome aboard but with a price that isnt in the top 5 of channel contracts, and a pay channel status for their customers that desire it. They still arent happy about the network/satellite/Sunday Ticket thing either so they arent bending.

For once it aint all the Cable Weasels' faults.

I disagree. How can Dish Network & Directv include it in their base package which is $39.99 in Directv's case and I believe even less for Dish Network? Why can they afford that channel when some cable companies can't?

The issue is cost. Spokesman Mark Harrad says Time Warner would have to pay $140 million a year to provide the channel to all 13.5 million of its subscribers in 33 states, placing it in the top five most expensive cable networks. He said the company would prefer to carry the network as part of a premium service -- not at the rate of 70 cents per customer per month the network is reportedly seeking."If we put all expensive sports programming on the standard tier of service, that would increase our rates to all of our customers, even those who didn't particularly care about football or these games," said Harrad.

NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky counters that a number of other cable companies as well as the two main satellite providers are "happily" carrying the network, which is jointly owned by the league's 32 team owners.

Sorry, I gotta disagree with some of you. Its your cable companies. 70 cents a month, thats what it comes down to, a pack of gum per customer per month. Luckily I switched to Directv a couple of years ago. So long Comcast

The NFL network has no business being one of the five most expensive cable networks. That's the bottom line.

I couldnt disagree more. If you asked all the people that wanted the NFL network if they would pay 70 cents a month for it you know they would. The problem is the cable companies will never let you the consumer go ala carte. TNT is a top 5 and I would sooner pay 70 cents for the NFL then for TNT.

With an ala carte setup, the NFL would want a lot more than 70 cents.

Exactly. Come on people.

 

[secretid]

Sorry, I gotta disagree with some of you. Its your cable companies. 70 cents a month, thats what it comes down to, a pack of gum per customer per month. Luckily I switched to Directv a couple of years ago. So long Comcast

This is moronic. You can break it into as many mental pieces as you want you're still talking about tens of millions of dollars that the cable companies would have to eat. You interested in losing tens of millions of dollars? Me neither.As for all you people wanting a la carte, most of you are dumb. Understand that networks would have to charge MUCH more per subscriber and even if you only ordered a third of the channels you have now it would probably still cost MUCH MUCH more than what you're currently paying. Bundle pricing (generally) benefits both the buyer and the seller.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

It's strange. I don't get the NFL Network and the sun still rises like it always did. I guess I won't get riled up over which giant business venture gets the upper hand in the cable vs NFL wars.

 

[The Mechanic]

It's strange. I don't get the NFL Network and the sun still rises like it always did. I guess I won't get riled up over which giant business venture gets the upper hand in the cable vs NFL wars.

HERE HERE! I may be a Caveman here because I only have rabbit ears for my TV ( Yes I live in the Country and not the concrete jungle). Sunday's I waych channel 3 (WPTZ), Fox on 44, Sunday Night it's NBC channel 5, Monday Night game I lost when it went to ESPN. Otherwise I keep my laptop running during the games Sunday for updates, And of course I watch for any significant injuries from the games in the Shark Pool.Man O Man, imagine if people cancelled their cable and however else they have and went back to "Rabbit Ears" on top of the TV. Well, thats my two cents. Now excuse me as I go to the hardware store for more steel wool for my Rabbit Ears ends..........

 

[GreekFreak]

You can watch games here: link

 

[Diamond One]

This situation is only going to get worse. Yeah, it's just eight games this season; what about next year? Would not surprise me to see NFLN get to move prime games to their network like they do the Sunday Night ones now...

Both sides are at fault here with the FANS getting screwed in the long run over the almighty f-in' $... Anyone know of a link to tell 'em all to pound sand?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I couldnt disagree more. If you asked all the people that wanted the NFL network if they would pay 70 cents a month for it you know they would. The problem is the cable companies will never let you the consumer go ala carte. TNT is a top 5 and I would sooner pay 70 cents for the NFL then for TNT.

That number of people might be a small percemtage compared to overall cable customers.I'd be interested to see a study on those numbers. We might be surprised -- given where we are right now, our perspective could be skewed.

There was a period of my life I didn't give a rat's ### about the NFL and wouldn't have wanted to pay .70 for it.

Though given a choice, I wouldn't have the 6 Hispanic channels I am forced to have taking space up on my cable spectrum, nor the shopping networks.

Ya think? It should not be a top 5 channel. Sorry.

 

[Arm Chair Express]

The NFL network has no business being one of the five most expensive cable networks. That's the bottom line.

The worst part is, if the NFL wins and gets all the games on NFLN they will jack up the price, and there is little anyone can do as long as football remains popular.

and lose millions of dollars in revenue from advertisement and game rights. Are companies going to pony up the money for advertising for a limited fan base. Not to mention the billions of dollars the other networks pay to show the games. Dumb move unless the NFL Network because a common cable channel.

 

[ravnzfan]

Went through all this before Thanksgiving. NFL demanding high price as well as guarantee that NFLN is on basic cable. This means the millions of subscribers that dont want NFLN would be paying an extra buck or more per month just for the privilege. NFL knows they'd get higher premium on advertising and reach larger audience on basic. Cable companies would say welcome aboard but with a price that isnt in the top 5 of channel contracts, and a pay channel status for their customers that desire it. They still arent happy about the network/satellite/Sunday Ticket thing either so they arent bending.

For once it aint all the Cable Weasels' faults.

I disagree. How can Dish Network & Directv include it in their base package which is $39.99 in Directv's case and I believe even less for Dish Network? Why can they afford that channel when some cable companies can't?

The issue is cost. Spokesman Mark Harrad says Time Warner would have to pay $140 million a year to provide the channel to all 13.5 million of its subscribers in 33 states, placing it in the top five most expensive cable networks. He said the company would prefer to carry the network as part of a premium service -- not at the rate of 70 cents per customer per month the network is reportedly seeking."If we put all expensive sports programming on the standard tier of service, that would increase our rates to all of our customers, even those who didn't particularly care about football or these games," said Harrad.

NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky counters that a number of other cable companies as well as the two main satellite providers are "happily" carrying the network, which is jointly owned by the league's 32 team owners.

Sorry, I gotta disagree with some of you. Its your cable companies. 70 cents a month, thats what it comes down to, a pack of gum per customer per month. Luckily I switched to Directv a couple of years ago. So long Comcast

The NFL network has no business being one of the five most expensive cable networks. That's the bottom line.

I couldnt disagree more. If you asked all the people that wanted the NFL network if they would pay 70 cents a month for it you know they would. The problem is the cable companies will never let you the consumer go ala carte. TNT is a top 5 and I would sooner pay 70 cents for the NFL then for TNT.

that's not the option--- 70 cents is for all customer of the system, not NFLN customers onlyI pay $4.99 for a Premium Sports Package that included NFLN---thank you Comcast , as this was my only option

they're using NFLN to subsidize other bullsh-it programming, but I've got little choice here---I will be looking into the Dish for next season, and pull my cable back to basic

I aggree it sould be "a la carte", but not as part of a 6 channel "package" the rest of which I never watch

if Comcast made me pay for a " Rachel Ray channel" as part of my basic package, I'd :X

I have no problem having a TNT or the like as part of the basic, as it provides movies, sports and other programming...

...the "specialty channels", like NFLN and other should be "a la carte" and solo---if enough people don't order it...drop it!

 

[InTheLoo]

I am certain all of us would be more than happy to pay a bit extra for NFLN, but having it in the top five rates to cable providers is nutso considering the programming it offers. A handful of games and everything else a replay of Super Bowl XVII?

Isnt part of the problem here that the networks and the NFL help out Direct TV knowing that the Sunday Ticket (which for the benefit of FANS should be available to cable subsribers ANYWAY) would kill CBS/Fox were it available to cable subscribers? Face it, the networks and the NFL know no one would be watching that all important Cleveland/NY Jets crap on CBS and would be watching another game with their Sunday Ticket? Is there a football fan out there that WOULDNT drop the $$ for the Ticket were it available through cable. I look at it as the one and only reason to have a dish, as do a lot of people.

Sure its available on sattelite, but thats a tiny percentage compared to cable thats in nearly every home in the US. No way in hell dish could outbid cable on NFL programming like the Ticket without assistance. I think that pisses off cable providers more than anything. Make sure we cant offer the NFL package to our customers, yet make us pay a billion for a peek into Jaguars training camp and 6 games a year? I dont blame 'em for telling the league to take a hike.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Went through all this before Thanksgiving. NFL demanding high price as well as guarantee that NFLN is on basic cable. This means the millions of subscribers that dont want NFLN would be paying an extra buck or more per month just for the privilege. NFL knows they'd get higher premium on advertising and reach larger audience on basic. Cable companies would say welcome aboard but with a price that isnt in the top 5 of channel contracts, and a pay channel status for their customers that desire it. They still arent happy about the network/satellite/Sunday Ticket thing either so they arent bending.

For once it aint all the Cable Weasels' faults.

I disagree. How can Dish Network & Directv include it in their base package which is $39.99 in Directv's case and I believe even less for Dish Network? Why can they afford that channel when some cable companies can't?

The issue is cost. Spokesman Mark Harrad says Time Warner would have to pay $140 million a year to provide the channel to all 13.5 million of its subscribers in 33 states, placing it in the top five most expensive cable networks. He said the company would prefer to carry the network as part of a premium service -- not at the rate of 70 cents per customer per month the network is reportedly seeking."If we put all expensive sports programming on the standard tier of service, that would increase our rates to all of our customers, even those who didn't particularly care about football or these games," said Harrad.

NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky counters that a number of other cable companies as well as the two main satellite providers are "happily" carrying the network, which is jointly owned by the league's 32 team owners.

Sorry, I gotta disagree with some of you. Its your cable companies. 70 cents a month, thats what it comes down to, a pack of gum per customer per month. Luckily I switched to Directv a couple of years ago. So long Comcast

The NFL network has no business being one of the five most expensive cable networks. That's the bottom line.

I couldnt disagree more. If you asked all the people that wanted the NFL network if they would pay 70 cents a month for it you know they would. The problem is the cable companies will never let you the consumer go ala carte. TNT is a top 5 and I would sooner pay 70 cents for the NFL then for TNT.

With an ala carte setup, the NFL would want a lot more than 70 cents.

Exactly. Come on people.

Thats exactly the point ! You wouldnt have to pay $80 a month for all the crap channels you dont want. Do you really want the Oxygen Network ? Well you are currently paying for it. How about the 90 other channels that you almost ever go on? If I paid $5 a month for the "cable channels" I viewed my bill might be $50 a month.Then again thats why I switched to Directv, my bill is half of what I use to pay with comcast.

 

[Thorpe]

Here are my 2 cents:

First of all, a la carte would be a nightmare, becuase you would be on the phone with the cable company all the time trying to get the channels you own turned on. I can just picture going channel by channel "Is it on?".

Second of all, the problem is that NFL Network wants to be part of basic cable. I purchased a "Sport and Movies" package for $5 a month, that has 10 movie channels plus 3 Fox Sports channels, the Tennis channel, NBA TV, and CSTV. This is the logical place for the NFL Network, IMO.

Third of all, if you are that serious about the NFL, you should have DirectTV and the NFL package anyways, so it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Third of all, if you are that serious about the NFL, you should have DirectTV and the NFL package anyways, so it shouldn't be an issue.

As has been repeated ad nauseum on this board - not everyone can get a dish -- due to where they live, money, and many other reasons.Sorry if we're not 'serious' enough for you, Thorpe.

 

[SOmojo]

Everyone seems to forget the fact that the satellites companies went through this when NFL Network first came out, and they quickly forked over the money to carry NFL Network.

They added it so their viewers could see it, price never went up, and price is still lower than the cable companies in my area.

Many are quick to blame NFL Network because they are going to charge the cable companies, just like they are charging the satellite companies. Every think for a minute that is just might be the big wigs at the cable companies that are more concerned with their bottom line than making the viewers happy?

 

[dparker713]

Everyone seems to forget the fact that the satellites companies went through this when NFL Network first came out, and they quickly forked over the money to carry NFL Network. They added it so their viewers could see it, price never went up, and price is still lower than the cable companies in my area. Many are quick to blame NFL Network because they are going to charge the cable companies, just like they are charging the satellite companies. Every think for a minute that is just might be the big wigs at the cable companies that are more concerned with their bottom line than making the viewers happy?

News Corp has been willing to run Direct TV at little to no profit for years to increase marketshare. Murdoch doesn't care about making you happy, he cares about dominating global media.

 

[Pipes]

Everyone seems to forget the fact that the satellites companies went through this when NFL Network first came out, and they quickly forked over the money to carry NFL Network.

They added it so their viewers could see it, price never went up, and price is still lower than the cable companies in my area.

Many are quick to blame NFL Network because they are going to charge the cable companies, just like they are charging the satellite companies. Every think for a minute that is just might be the big wigs at the cable companies that are more concerned with their bottom line than making the viewers happy?

News Corp has been willing to run Direct TV at little to no profit for years to increase marketshare. Murdoch doesn't care about making you happy, he cares about dominating global media.

Really???http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=94146

http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stor...06/daily35.html

 

[Bevo]

Everyone seems to forget the fact that the satellites companies went through this when NFL Network first came out, and they quickly forked over the money to carry NFL Network.

They added it so their viewers could see it, price never went up, and price is still lower than the cable companies in my area.

Many are quick to blame NFL Network because they are going to charge the cable companies, just like they are charging the satellite companies. Every think for a minute that is just might be the big wigs at the cable companies that are more concerned with their bottom line than making the viewers happy?

News Corp has been willing to run Direct TV at little to no profit for years to increase marketshare. Murdoch doesn't care about making you happy, he cares about dominating global media.

Really???http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=94146

http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stor...06/daily35.html

Perhaps he was prepared to run it at a loss but with all the people switching from cable to get the NFL Network he ended up making a very nice profit?

 

[dparker713]

Everyone seems to forget the fact that the satellites companies went through this when NFL Network first came out, and they quickly forked over the money to carry NFL Network.

They added it so their viewers could see it, price never went up, and price is still lower than the cable companies in my area.

Many are quick to blame NFL Network because they are going to charge the cable companies, just like they are charging the satellite companies. Every think for a minute that is just might be the big wigs at the cable companies that are more concerned with their bottom line than making the viewers happy?

News Corp has been willing to run Direct TV at little to no profit for years to increase marketshare. Murdoch doesn't care about making you happy, he cares about dominating global media.

Really???http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=94146

http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stor...06/daily35.html

The company added 160,000 net subscribers at its core U.S. unit in the third quarter, and gross subscriber additions were down nine percent. Average monthly churn rate was 1.8 percent, down from 1.89 percent in the year-ago period. Average monthly revenue per subscriber was $72.74, up from $68.65 in the year-ago period, due to DirecTV's targeting of consumers who are more likely to purchase extra services.

In the first nine months of the fiscal year, the company reported $10.6 billion in revenue, up from $9.6 billion in the year-ago period. Net income was $1.1 billion, or 83 cents a share, in the nine-month period, up from $214.7 million, or 15 cents a share, in the first nine months of fiscal 2005.

Considering their subscriber base barely grew, yet their profits quardupled, where exactly do you think they created all that growth? Could it maybe have been that they've been willing to run a little to no profit until 2006 to gain market share?

Considering my argument is historical, looking prior to say, 3 months ago might be helpful.

2003 1st

This has been a long term project, the most recent quarters are merely the payoff for patience.

 

[Pipes]

Everyone seems to forget the fact that the satellites companies went through this when NFL Network first came out, and they quickly forked over the money to carry NFL Network.

They added it so their viewers could see it, price never went up, and price is still lower than the cable companies in my area.

Many are quick to blame NFL Network because they are going to charge the cable companies, just like they are charging the satellite companies. Every think for a minute that is just might be the big wigs at the cable companies that are more concerned with their bottom line than making the viewers happy?

News Corp has been willing to run Direct TV at little to no profit for years to increase marketshare. Murdoch doesn't care about making you happy, he cares about dominating global media.

Really???http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=94146

http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stor...06/daily35.html

The company added 160,000 net subscribers at its core U.S. unit in the third quarter, and gross subscriber additions were down nine percent. Average monthly churn rate was 1.8 percent, down from 1.89 percent in the year-ago period. Average monthly revenue per subscriber was $72.74, up from $68.65 in the year-ago period, due to DirecTV's targeting of consumers who are more likely to purchase extra services.

In the first nine months of the fiscal year, the company reported $10.6 billion in revenue, up from $9.6 billion in the year-ago period. Net income was $1.1 billion, or 83 cents a share, in the nine-month period, up from $214.7 million, or 15 cents a share, in the first nine months of fiscal 2005.

Considering their subscriber base barely grew, yet their profits quardupled, where exactly do you think they created all that growth? Could it maybe have been that they've been willing to run a little to no profit until 2006 to gain market share?

Considering my argument is historical, looking prior to say, 3 months ago might be helpful.

2003 1st

This has been a long term project, the most recent quarters are merely the payoff for patience.

The whole point was to show that directv can offer the NFLN in their base package without nailing the consumer and this proves they are doing it while still making a hefty profit. Maybe Directv is just more efficient than the cable companies.

 

[dparker713]

The whole point was to show that directv can offer the NFLN in their base package without nailing the consumer and this proves they are doing it while still making a hefty profit. Maybe Directv is just more efficient than the cable companies.

That has more to do with their Sunday Ticket deal with the NFL then any built in efficiences. Without the extra cost of the games, the NFLN costs $0.20, with the games $0.70. Unless Im mistaken, the Sunday Ticket contract already included those games, so no increase in price for them this year. Even if it wasn't, considering their average customer received a $4 bill hike this past year its fairly easy to hide that 50 cents.

 

[Road Warriors]

Let me see if I have this right... NFL Network gets to charge the carrier of the signal, and dictate how the carrier must price it, so that NFL Network can increase viewership and subsequently advertising rates.

So basically, they want to charge the cable companies millions to make the product they're selling worth more to themselves. :(

If I'm in business as a cable company, why does this arrangement make sense? Is carrying the NFL network going to increase my subscriber base? Doubtful.

 

[Pipes]

The whole point was to show that directv can offer the NFLN in their base package without nailing the consumer and this proves they are doing it while still making a hefty profit. Maybe Directv is just more efficient than the cable companies.

That has more to do with their Sunday Ticket deal with the NFL then any built in efficiences. Without the extra cost of the games, the NFLN costs $0.20, with the games $0.70. Unless Im mistaken, the Sunday Ticket contract already included those games, so no increase in price for them this year. Even if it wasn't, considering their average customer received a $4 bill hike this past year its fairly easy to hide that 50 cents.

I'm kind of wondering that myself. Though that's an arguement I can buy. Personally I'm not a Sunday Ticket subscriber and I know many Direct TV customers that aren't so are those subscribers essentially footing the bill for the rest of us?And even with that $4 hike per subscriber it's still a better deal than cable so obviously they're doing something right.

 

[C & C]

If I'm in business as a cable company, why does this arrangement make sense? Is carrying the NFL network going to increase my subscriber base? Doubtful.

Does not carrying the NFL network mean your subscriber base will decrease? Now that they're carrying games?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

If I'm in business as a cable company, why does this arrangement make sense? Is carrying the NFL network going to increase my subscriber base? Doubtful.

Does not carrying the NFL network mean your subscriber base will decrease? Now that they're carrying games?

Sure, but does it decrease your base by more than charging the entire base $.70 more a month for a niche channel that a lot of them won't watch? I would guess that if the cable companies are making this stand, they figure they'll lose more people by raising prices.

 

[valhallan]

If I'm in business as a cable company, why does this arrangement make sense? Is carrying the NFL network going to increase my subscriber base? Doubtful.

Does not carrying the NFL network mean your subscriber base will decrease? Now that they're carrying games?

Sure, but does it decrease your base by more than charging the entire base $.70 more a month for a niche channel that a lot of them won't watch? I would guess that if the cable companies are making this stand, they figure they'll lose more people by raising prices.

Sounds to me like most people with cable are stuck with it or they'd have satellite by now. Why not take the NFL deal and charge more?

 

[Phurfur]

In the past it was very easy to watch all the big games as the season came to a close. The NFL is making it to much of a hassle to watch these games. Because of this I have pretty much soured on this season and after my playoffs are over next week may stop watching altogether. Who wants to watch 2 teams play you are not familiar with. Bye bye NFL.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

If I'm in business as a cable company, why does this arrangement make sense? Is carrying the NFL network going to increase my subscriber base? Doubtful.

Does not carrying the NFL network mean your subscriber base will decrease? Now that they're carrying games?

Sure, but does it decrease your base by more than charging the entire base $.70 more a month for a niche channel that a lot of them won't watch? I would guess that if the cable companies are making this stand, they figure they'll lose more people by raising prices.

Sounds to me like most people with cable are stuck with it or they'd have satellite by now. Why not take the NFL deal and charge more?

That's where I think you're wrong. I could have satellite and don't have any desire to get it. Perfectly happy with TW cable, to be honest. I have no interest in the Sunday Ticket either.