NFL NETWORK - TIME WARNER (1 Viewer)

[LAUNCH]

NFL MAKES OFFER TO TIME WARNER

The National Football League has made a significant, and surprising, offer to solve the lingering impasse with cable giant Time Warner. In a letter sent on Thursday to Glenn Britt, President and CEO of Time Warner, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell offered to submit the dispute to arbitration.

The league is willing to allow an arbitrator to determine the price of the network, and the tier on which it would be placed.

The problem has arisen because companies like Time Warner want to use NFLN as the drawing card for a higher-level sports tier that will induce NFL fans to cough up extra money -- and that will result in the receipt of other channels that they might not want. The NFL has been holding out for the placement of the league-owned network on basic cable, putting it into as many homes as possible. Cable companies have claimed that the NFL wants too much for its product.

The offer is valid until December 28, one day before the Giants host the Patriots in what could be New England's achievement of the first 16-0 season in NFL history.

We like the idea of the league and all cable companies working this one out. If they can't come up with their own solution to the problem, someone else (Congress) will come up with a solution for them.

LAUNCH

 

[joffer]

any chance the hearing happens in the next 15 minutes?

 

[salmonstud]

any chance the hearing happens in the next 15 minutes?

 

[chidoy]

any chance the hearing happens in the next 15 minutes?

x2

 

[Neo]

Oh man, I really hope this gets settled. As Samuel Jackson said "I'm tired of these mother$#$& snakes on this motherf#%@ plane!"

 

[a_rackowski]

It might - I called and asked and got put on hold - I had to go so couldnt wait.

 

[Dope]

any chance the hearing happens in the next 15 minutes?

x2

Impressive speed too.

 

[Crusaderfan]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

 

[Road Warriors]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

As I understand the impasse, the NFL has a per subscriber fee they're charging for the product. By getting on the basic tier, they'll get millions. If it ends up on a sports tier, they'll probably get only 10-20% of that. Cable companies will have to pay those fees, so they're trying to limit the amout they spend on the channel. Of course, the benovelant cable companies will likely up their sports tier pricing by a premium over the cost of the new NFL network offering, therefore making a profit on the network, along with the various ad revenues they'll get during the NFL games. I think this is a case of two billion dollar industries trying to figure out who gets to take our money. They're both greedy.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

As a supporter of the cable companies in this, I like the offer because I think it shows that the NFL realizes that if this goes to an impartial group like Congress, instead of a fantasy football message board, the NFL will lose. Hope they can settle quickly.

 

[cstu]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

Isn't the Comcast Sports Package $5? If all I want it the NFL Network I don't want to pay for a bunch of other sports channels I won't want. The NFL's appeal is large enough that roughly half of basic cable subscribers would want it and I'm already paying for A LOT of basic channels I don't want. If the issue is $1 per subscriber that doesn't seem like a bad price - I believe the NFL was asking for something like $3 before.

 

[Crusaderfan]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

Isn't the Comcast Sports Package $5? If all I want it the NFL Network I don't want to pay for a bunch of other sports channels I won't want. The NFL's appeal is large enough that roughly half of basic cable subscribers would want it and I'm already paying for A LOT of basic channels I don't want. If the issue is $1 per subscriber that doesn't seem like a bad price - I believe the NFL was asking for something like $3 before.

When I got it they had a special of $1.99/mth for 1 yr then it goes up to something like $4.99/mth. I'm hoping that they can work something out by next year - otherwise I'll had to think long and hard about the extra $5 a month - I'm already sending Comcast a monthly check of over $130.

 

[Bobcat10]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

What channel does every basic cable subscriber want? That makes no sense, but I must be missing something here.

I'd give up a ton of channels on basic/digital (which totals ~150-200) cable to get this one channel.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

Oh man, I really hope this gets settled. As Samuel Jackson said "I'm tired of these mother$#$& snakes on this motherf#%@ plane!"

 

[AB in DC]

As a comparison, I read somewhere that CNN gets only $0.75 per subscriber.

Do you think that the NFL Network is really worth 33% more than CNN to the average cable viewer/company?

 

[Colin Dowling]

As a comparison, I read somewhere that CNN gets only $0.75 per subscriber.Do you think that the NFL Network is really worth 33% more than CNN to the average cable viewer/company?

Yes.I'm not entirely sure why everyone is so certain the NFL would lose. For starters, this isn't an issue government should be involved in anyway. Goddell and Jerry Jones had a hearing here in Texas a week ago and the lawmakers seemed to come to the conclusion it was none of their business.

 

[hufjay]

of course the nfl wants binding arbitration cause they have nothing to lose. this will make their channell available one way or another. i think time warner holds strong. who needs the network when u can watch the game on the itnernet for free and dont have to listen to gumbel

 

[Routilla]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

What channel does every basic cable subscriber want? That makes no sense, but I must be missing something here.

I'd give up a ton of channels on basic/digital (which totals ~150-200) cable to get this one channel.

You aint just whistlin' dixie.

 

[ShadowMaster]

As a comparison, I read somewhere that CNN gets only $0.75 per subscriber.Do you think that the NFL Network is really worth 33% more than CNN to the average cable viewer/company?

HELL YES!More people watch NFL football than Larry King or Anderson Cooper.You have 50 choices for news options while the NFL has an exclusive broadcast right for it's productPretty simple supply and demand really - hope you not a business major

 

[BigJim®]

Seems like a PR move to me by the NFL, given that they are probably taking a lot of heat over their product not being as available as consumers expect, and the threat of congressional action if the problem is not solved. I highly doubt TW would agree to bring this to arbitration, particularly binding arbitration, if there is any risk they could be stuck with NFL's terms. This is not a contract breach situation where an existing contract is in dispute and parties are trying to avoid litigating the dispute; they are simply negotiating a brand new contract and have the right to insist upon what terms they will agree to.

I can think of a million business-business analogies here, but this situation is no different than one company in negotiations to sell its widgets to a retailer at a high cost and demanding conspicuous product placement on shelves, and the retailer saying "no thanks, we'll go with our existing stock." It's highly unlikely the retailer would agree to binding arbitration at the risk of paying more than it wants for the widgets and being required specific placement on shelves, when they have the freedom today to simply say "no, we want the terms we want." Ultimately the businesses should be allowed to enter into the contract or not on his/her own desired terms, not those dictated by an arbitrator who is trying to find common middle ground.

Surely the NFL is aware that TW would never agree to be bound byu an arbitrator pre-contract, and is simply trying to garner public support for its position.

 

[encaitar]

As a comparison, I read somewhere that CNN gets only $0.75 per subscriber.Do you think that the NFL Network is really worth 33% more than CNN to the average cable viewer/company?

HELL YES!More people watch NFL football than Larry King or Anderson Cooper.You have 50 choices for news options while the NFL has an exclusive broadcast right for it's productPretty simple supply and demand really - hope you not a business major

I don't think people are thinking before they reply yes. Sure, as a huge football fan you'd think EVERYONE would want this, but it just isn't true. The average football fan doesn't watch anyone except their own team and sometimes a great matchup. So far there has been ONE matchup that people other than HUGE football fans or homers would want to watch on NFLN(Green Bay at Dallas). The rest of the week you would only have extreme Fantasy Footballers(like us sharks) and extreme football fans watching the replays of the games and the various insight shows. I would say that would equate to less than 5 percent of the population.So, yes the NFL is asking too much for this channel when a channel like CNN get 0.75 per subscriber. Everyone over the age of 60 never shuts that channel off.

 

[AB in DC]

As a comparison, I read somewhere that CNN gets only $0.75 per subscriber.

Do you think that the NFL Network is really worth 33% more than CNN to the average cable viewer/company?

HELL YES!More people watch NFL football than Larry King or Anderson Cooper.

More people watch NFL football for 16 games of the year than watch CNN for 365 days? I don't think so.I don't have the exact ratings in front of me, but I think ESPN has been getting about 10 million viewers for an average football game. So let's say NFL network will get 10 million viewers a piece for 8 games. That's 80 million eyeballs. Let's say they get 100,000 viewers any other day of the year and that's another 35 million eyeballs, for a total of 115 million per year.

Now let's say CNN averages about 500,000 viewers per day. That comes out to 182.5 million eyeballs per year.

And that's not even counting the fact the the NFL games are on for just 3.5 hours per game, vs. CNN being on 24 hours.

Pretty simple supply and demand really - hope you not a business major

Hope you're not a math major.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the cable companies list every channel available and how much it costs each month. Then their subscribers could pick and chose which channels they want and don't want. I pay for 200+ channels. I might actually watch 15 of them. I would pay extra for the channels I actually watch to get a discount on the channels I don't watch.

In order for me to get ESPNNews I have to get a package with 40 or so other channels that I don't watch like the Soap Channel.

 

[H.K.]

I like the offer because I think it shows that the NFL realizes that if this goes to an impartial group like Congress, instead of a fantasy football message board, the NFL will lose. Hope they can settle quickly.

Looks to me like the NFL is making a proactive move to go to arbitration in lieu of going before Congress, too. IIRC, I think they are at risk of being cited for breaking anti-trust laws based on the AFL-NFL merger agreeement they made many years ago. I would guess they know they'll lose in court, so they feel going to arbitration will end up in a more a ruling more beneficial to them.

 

[Road Warriors]

As a comparison, I read somewhere that CNN gets only $0.75 per subscriber.Do you think that the NFL Network is really worth 33% more than CNN to the average cable viewer/company?

Yes.I'm not entirely sure why everyone is so certain the NFL would lose. For starters, this isn't an issue government should be involved in anyway. Goddell and Jerry Jones had a hearing here in Texas a week ago and the lawmakers seemed to come to the conclusion it was none of their business.

I don't think the NFL network vs cable is an issue that the govenrment should get involved in, and most lawmakers will agree. But if they continue to press like this, Congress will likely revisit the NFL anit-trust exemption. And the NFL knows very well they don't want that genie out of the bottle.I am willing to bet this comes to some resolution, and quickly, as a bipartisan committee of Congress that has the ability to open that can of worms for the NFL has issued a statement to the NFL that they "may look into the anti-trust status" of the NFL.

 

[DVDA]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the cable companies list every channel available and how much it costs each month. Then their subscribers could pick and chose which channels they want and don't want. I pay for 200+ channels. I might actually watch 15 of them. I would pay extra for the channels I actually watch to get a discount on the channels I don't watch. In order for me to get ESPNNews I have to get a package with 40 or so other channels that I don't watch like the Soap Channel.

I agree with you. You would think that some cable company would start offering "a la carte" service that allowed the consumer to pick and choose what channels they want.

 

[AB in DC]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the cable companies list every channel available and how much it costs each month. Then their subscribers could pick and chose which channels they want and don't want. I pay for 200+ channels. I might actually watch 15 of them. I would pay extra for the channels I actually watch to get a discount on the channels I don't watch.

Personally I'd be in favor of this, but you have to keep in mind that there is a ton of overhead cost to bring cable TV to your door. So if cable subscribers could pick just the five or ten channels they watch, the cable companies would have to markup their costs by an insane amount.Think about it this way -- if you figure that most people really watch only ten channels out of a hundred, then even if you're suddenly allowed to just pay for the ten channels you watch, you're probably going to be paying the same amount either way.

 

[Road Warriors]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the cable companies list every channel available and how much it costs each month. Then their subscribers could pick and chose which channels they want and don't want. I pay for 200+ channels. I might actually watch 15 of them. I would pay extra for the channels I actually watch to get a discount on the channels I don't watch.

Personally I'd be in favor of this, but you have to keep in mind that there is a ton of overhead cost to bring cable TV to your door. So if cable subscribers could pick just the five or ten channels they watch, the cable companies would have to markup their costs by an insane amount.Think about it this way -- if you figure that most people really watch only ten channels out of a hundred, then even if you're suddenly allowed to just pay for the ten channels you watch, you're probably going to be paying the same amount either way.

I expect an a la carte Cable offering sometime in the next few years, but I expect that there will be a pretty significant "access fee" as an entry point. IMO, any a la carte programming will not reduce the revenues that the Cable company will receive. The cable companies is beholding to its shareholders, and the shareholders best interests are not served by reducing revenue. Remember, the cable company is not looking out for your best interests. Until there is true competition in the marketplace, the cable company will have full pricing controls.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the cable companies list every channel available and how much it costs each month. Then their subscribers could pick and chose which channels they want and don't want. I pay for 200+ channels. I might actually watch 15 of them. I would pay extra for the channels I actually watch to get a discount on the channels I don't watch. In order for me to get ESPNNews I have to get a package with 40 or so other channels that I don't watch like the Soap Channel.

Folks have been pushing for a la carte channel selections for a long time. Doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Heck, I'd even be interested in a la carte (basically pay-per-view) SHOWS. As others have said, NFLN is cool (I have it now), but the only thing I REALLY want are the couple of actual NFL games I can't get anywhere else. The technology is there, it just a matter of what makes the most money for the content providers and the cable companies and neither a-la-carte or pay-per-view (on broad scale) are it.

 

[murph420]

TW quickly replied thanks but no thanks to the binding arbitration offer. still no NFL network for NYC.

 

[MOAT]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the cable companies list every channel available and how much it costs each month. Then their subscribers could pick and chose which channels they want and don't want. I pay for 200+ channels. I might actually watch 15 of them. I would pay extra for the channels I actually watch to get a discount on the channels I don't watch.

Personally I'd be in favor of this, but you have to keep in mind that there is a ton of overhead cost to bring cable TV to your door. So if cable subscribers could pick just the five or ten channels they watch, the cable companies would have to markup their costs by an insane amount.Think about it this way -- if you figure that most people really watch only ten channels out of a hundred, then even if you're suddenly allowed to just pay for the ten channels you watch, you're probably going to be paying the same amount either way.

Exactly, I would expect per channel pricing to range from $10 -$20 per channel. The NFL would probably fall in the high range. For people unwilling to pay $5-$6 for the sports tier, are you willing to pay $20 for just the NFLN?

 

[BigJim®]

TW quickly replied thanks but no thanks to the binding arbitration offer. still no NFL network for NYC.

This was a very predicatble result. As mentioned in my prior post, 100% posturing by NFL who knows full well people are not going to be seeing NFL network games and they want to redirect the flack.

 

[a_rackowski]

So its over?

 

[a_rackowski]

And to the guy who said CNN is bigger than NFL, I dont know but Id watch NFL Network 7 days a week. I watch fox news, but same idea and I watch it only 1-2 days a week and only for brief time periods. Its not just about the 16 games, its about the whole product that is the NFL.

I know of so many message boards on fantasy football and NFL Football. Yet CNN message board pales in comparison and the # of users.

I am not a major of anything but the internet is always a pretty good reflection of our society. Football is the rage right now and has been for quite some time.

 

[sdsjr3]

As a comparison, I read somewhere that CNN gets only $0.75 per subscriber.Do you think that the NFL Network is really worth 33% more than CNN to the average cable viewer/company?

Yes.I'm not entirely sure why everyone is so certain the NFL would lose. For starters, this isn't an issue government should be involved in anyway. Goddell and Jerry Jones had a hearing here in Texas a week ago and the lawmakers seemed to come to the conclusion it was none of their business.

Disagree. The Gov't should be involved because some cable companies are gouging the customers terribly. For example, in my area, Verizon has yet to get the FIOS system working. Comcast still has a monopoly on TV and can set prices at will. About 2 years ago, a bill was sent through congress which would force cable companies to offer "Ala Carte" cable. In other words, the customer's get to pick and choose what they want to pay for and watch. Think that upset the cable companies? Heck yeah it did. They would lose MILLIONS. But...they are currently raking in all this extra money from customers who want specific channels, yet are forced to pay for a load of other ones they don't want. Comcast has raised the rates in central PA the past 2 years on us. The last one was fairly significant too, although I don't have the numbers off the top of my head.Now the interesting thing about all of this. The Bill put through congress suddenly is an unknown. Geee, that's odd. Not a word has been said about it since it's initial submission that I'm aware of. So, even though it makes sense for the Gov't to be involved in this issue, it's a corrupt Gov't and we will continue to get screwed. I have no doubt that Comcast (or the whole lot of cable companies) is in cahoots with some high ranking politician and the bill is dead.How does this relate to the ongoing NFLN arguement? Simple, as long as they are BOTH making money, and agreement will be reached. That's the impasse. In the end, what's best for the customer is not an issue. How can we screw the blind customer? THAT'S the issue.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the cable companies list every channel available and how much it costs each month. Then their subscribers could pick and chose which channels they want and don't want. I pay for 200+ channels. I might actually watch 15 of them. I would pay extra for the channels I actually watch to get a discount on the channels I don't watch.

Personally I'd be in favor of this, but you have to keep in mind that there is a ton of overhead cost to bring cable TV to your door. So if cable subscribers could pick just the five or ten channels they watch, the cable companies would have to markup their costs by an insane amount.Think about it this way -- if you figure that most people really watch only ten channels out of a hundred, then even if you're suddenly allowed to just pay for the ten channels you watch, you're probably going to be paying the same amount either way.

Exactly, I would expect per channel pricing to range from $10 -$20 per channel. The NFL would probably fall in the high range. For people unwilling to pay $5-$6 for the sports tier, are you willing to pay $20 for just the NFLN?

It depends. I'd rather pay $100 for only 30 channels that I do use, then pay $100 for 250 channels with only 15 that I use.

 

[Bobcat10]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the cable companies list every channel available and how much it costs each month. Then their subscribers could pick and chose which channels they want and don't want. I pay for 200+ channels. I might actually watch 15 of them. I would pay extra for the channels I actually watch to get a discount on the channels I don't watch.

Personally I'd be in favor of this, but you have to keep in mind that there is a ton of overhead cost to bring cable TV to your door. So if cable subscribers could pick just the five or ten channels they watch, the cable companies would have to markup their costs by an insane amount.Think about it this way -- if you figure that most people really watch only ten channels out of a hundred, then even if you're suddenly allowed to just pay for the ten channels you watch, you're probably going to be paying the same amount either way.

Exactly, I would expect per channel pricing to range from $10 -$20 per channel. The NFL would probably fall in the high range. For people unwilling to pay $5-$6 for the sports tier, are you willing to pay $20 for just the NFLN?

It depends. I'd rather pay $100 for only 30 channels that I do use, then pay $100 for 250 channels with only 15 that I use.

Good point. Makes sense to me.I think the ala cart stuff would not be as clear cut as each channel costs $X. For example, maybe they'd 10 channels for $X, 20 channels for $Y...where the more channels you get the better discount you'd see. If not that, then something else more creative than just every channel costs you $5. Then they'd still bend you over for the 10 HBO channels, unless those would fall into ala cart too.

 

[moderated]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

Isn't the Comcast Sports Package $5? If all I want it the NFL Network I don't want to pay for a bunch of other sports channels I won't want. The NFL's appeal is large enough that roughly half of basic cable subscribers would want it and I'm already paying for A LOT of basic channels I don't want. If the issue is $1 per subscriber that doesn't seem like a bad price - I believe the NFL was asking for something like $3 before.

Your way over-rating the NFL's overall appeal to the general public. No way 50% of the average basic cable subscribers would want the NFL network, more like 10%.

 

[Phurfur]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

Isn't the Comcast Sports Package $5? If all I want it the NFL Network I don't want to pay for a bunch of other sports channels I won't want. The NFL's appeal is large enough that roughly half of basic cable subscribers would want it and I'm already paying for A LOT of basic channels I don't want. If the issue is $1 per subscriber that doesn't seem like a bad price - I believe the NFL was asking for something like $3 before.

Your way over-rating the NFL's overall appeal to the general public. No way 50% of the average basic cable subscribers would want the NFL network, more like 10%.

Really what a bunch of crap. Your 10% is more like 20% during football season but after the football season ends it goes down to 2%. If I were Time Warner I would tell the NFL to stick it. Who are they to dictate how Time Warner runs its business. If people want it let them pay extra, I did with Cox and I am fine with that. The problem is after the SB I will cancel it. The NFL’s way I would be stuck with it all year.

 

[Phurfur]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

What channel does every basic cable subscriber want? That makes no sense, but I must be missing something here.

I'd give up a ton of channels on basic/digital (which totals ~150-200) cable to get this one channel.

The difference is the channels almost no one wants cost the cable companies almost nothing so they are almost a throw in. The money the NFL is demanding will cause the price of basic service to go up for everyone.I pay for the NFL Network through Cox but would be ticked off it became part of the basic package because I will cancel after the SB. That is the NFL's problem, they are a seasonal channel.

 

[sdsjr3]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

What channel does every basic cable subscriber want? That makes no sense, but I must be missing something here.

I'd give up a ton of channels on basic/digital (which totals ~150-200) cable to get this one channel.

The difference is the channels almost no one wants cost the cable companies almost nothing so they are almost a throw in. The money the NFL is demanding will cause the price of basic service to go up for everyone.

Or at least it's a great excuse to hike the rates.

 

[Walter Slovotsky]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the cable companies list every channel available and how much it costs each month. Then their subscribers could pick and chose which channels they want and don't want. I pay for 200+ channels. I might actually watch 15 of them. I would pay extra for the channels I actually watch to get a discount on the channels I don't watch.

Personally I'd be in favor of this, but you have to keep in mind that there is a ton of overhead cost to bring cable TV to your door. So if cable subscribers could pick just the five or ten channels they watch, the cable companies would have to markup their costs by an insane amount.Think about it this way -- if you figure that most people really watch only ten channels out of a hundred, then even if you're suddenly allowed to just pay for the ten channels you watch, you're probably going to be paying the same amount either way.

Exactly, I would expect per channel pricing to range from $10 -$20 per channel. The NFL would probably fall in the high range. For people unwilling to pay $5-$6 for the sports tier, are you willing to pay $20 for just the NFLN?

It depends. I'd rather pay $100 for only 30 channels that I do use, then pay $100 for 250 channels with only 15 that I use.

Good point. Makes sense to me.I think the ala cart stuff would not be as clear cut as each channel costs $X. For example, maybe they'd 10 channels for $X, 20 channels for $Y...where the more channels you get the better discount you'd see. If not that, then something else more creative than just every channel costs you $5. Then they'd still bend you over for the 10 HBO channels, unless those would fall into ala cart too.

Actually, HBO is a perfect example of what you would get if you went a la carte. Every specialty channel would now be HBO. So, if you want to know the minimum you would pay, pick the channels you want, multiply by what you would currently pay for HBO, add $20-$30 for access. And that would be a minimum, I would expect the average special interest channel would be slightly higher than that, say 10-12 percent.Still want a la carte?

 

[Phurfur]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

What you don't get is that you will be paying that $1 and how much will you watch it from Feb - July? Not to mention millions that will never watch it. The NFL is way out of line on this one.

 

[Phurfur]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the cable companies list every channel available and how much it costs each month. Then their subscribers could pick and chose which channels they want and don't want. I pay for 200+ channels. I might actually watch 15 of them. I would pay extra for the channels I actually watch to get a discount on the channels I don't watch.

Personally I'd be in favor of this, but you have to keep in mind that there is a ton of overhead cost to bring cable TV to your door. So if cable subscribers could pick just the five or ten channels they watch, the cable companies would have to markup their costs by an insane amount.Think about it this way -- if you figure that most people really watch only ten channels out of a hundred, then even if you're suddenly allowed to just pay for the ten channels you watch, you're probably going to be paying the same amount either way.

Exactly, I would expect per channel pricing to range from $10 -$20 per channel. The NFL would probably fall in the high range. For people unwilling to pay $5-$6 for the sports tier, are you willing to pay $20 for just the NFLN?

It depends. I'd rather pay $100 for only 30 channels that I do use, then pay $100 for 250 channels with only 15 that I use.

Good point. Makes sense to me.I think the ala cart stuff would not be as clear cut as each channel costs $X. For example, maybe they'd 10 channels for $X, 20 channels for $Y...where the more channels you get the better discount you'd see. If not that, then something else more creative than just every channel costs you $5. Then they'd still bend you over for the 10 HBO channels, unless those would fall into ala cart too.

Actually, HBO is a perfect example of what you would get if you went a la carte. Every specialty channel would now be HBO. So, if you want to know the minimum you would pay, pick the channels you want, multiply by what you would currently pay for HBO, add $20-$30 for access. And that would be a minimum, I would expect the average special interest channel would be slightly higher than that, say 10-12 percent.Still want a la carte?

I agree you will be getting fewer channels for more money.

 

[GregR_2]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

As I understand the impasse, the NFL has a per subscriber fee they're charging for the product. By getting on the basic tier, they'll get millions. If it ends up on a sports tier, they'll probably get only 10-20% of that. Cable companies will have to pay those fees, so they're trying to limit the amout they spend on the channel. Of course, the benovelant cable companies will likely up their sports tier pricing by a premium over the cost of the new NFL network offering, therefore making a profit on the network, along with the various ad revenues they'll get during the NFL games. I think this is a case of two billion dollar industries trying to figure out who gets to take our money. They're both greedy.

Right. The NFL wants it on in everyone's house because they'll make more subscriber money, and also will get more viewers which = more advertising revenue.The cable companies want it in a sports tier that has a higher markup because it will be the premium channel in that tier and will vastly increase the number of subscriptions to it, giving them a lot more profit than if it was on the basic tier.The NFL is not taking its stance because it cares about the viewers. The cable companies are not taking their stance because they care about their viewers. Both claim they are, but that is just public relations. If they cared about the viewers it would be offered as a single channel offering (i.e. ala carte) that you could choose or not, without having to get extra channels as part of it, or being forced to have it in the basic lineup.ETA: So far the announcements from both sides about their reasonable offers they made the other side have been mainly PR, in my humble opinion. But this time, offering to go to an arbitrator, I think is a very decent move by the NFL and so I give them a for the offer.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

As I understand the impasse, the NFL has a per subscriber fee they're charging for the product. By getting on the basic tier, they'll get millions. If it ends up on a sports tier, they'll probably get only 10-20% of that. Cable companies will have to pay those fees, so they're trying to limit the amout they spend on the channel. Of course, the benovelant cable companies will likely up their sports tier pricing by a premium over the cost of the new NFL network offering, therefore making a profit on the network, along with the various ad revenues they'll get during the NFL games. I think this is a case of two billion dollar industries trying to figure out who gets to take our money. They're both greedy.

Right. The NFL wants it on in everyone's house because they'll make more subscriber money, and also will get more viewers which = more advertising revenue.The cable companies want it in a sports tier that has a higher markup because it will be the premium channel in that tier and will vastly increase the number of subscriptions to it, giving them a lot more profit than if it was on the basic tier.The NFL is not taking its stance because it cares about the viewers. The cable companies are not taking their stance because they care about their viewers. Both claim they are, but that is just public relations. If they cared about the viewers it would be offered as a single channel offering (i.e. ala carte) that you could choose or not, without having to get extra channels as part of it, or being forced to have it in the basic lineup.

Right, so whose greed benefits me the most? Do I own any financial part of the NFL? Uh...no. Do I own any financial part of Time Warner? Hell yes, in all those mutual funds and ETFs I own. Advantage: TW. Sorry NFL. I care more about TW maximizing it's profit than I care about 32 billionaires maximizing their profit.

 

[GregR_2]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

As I understand the impasse, the NFL has a per subscriber fee they're charging for the product. By getting on the basic tier, they'll get millions. If it ends up on a sports tier, they'll probably get only 10-20% of that. Cable companies will have to pay those fees, so they're trying to limit the amout they spend on the channel. Of course, the benovelant cable companies will likely up their sports tier pricing by a premium over the cost of the new NFL network offering, therefore making a profit on the network, along with the various ad revenues they'll get during the NFL games. I think this is a case of two billion dollar industries trying to figure out who gets to take our money. They're both greedy.

Right. The NFL wants it on in everyone's house because they'll make more subscriber money, and also will get more viewers which = more advertising revenue.The cable companies want it in a sports tier that has a higher markup because it will be the premium channel in that tier and will vastly increase the number of subscriptions to it, giving them a lot more profit than if it was on the basic tier.The NFL is not taking its stance because it cares about the viewers. The cable companies are not taking their stance because they care about their viewers. Both claim they are, but that is just public relations. If they cared about the viewers it would be offered as a single channel offering (i.e. ala carte) that you could choose or not, without having to get extra channels as part of it, or being forced to have it in the basic lineup.

Right, so whose greed benefits me the most? Do I own any financial part of the NFL? Uh...no. Do I own any financial part of Time Warner? Hell yes, in all those mutual funds and ETFs I own. Advantage: TW. Sorry NFL. I care more about TW maximizing it's profit than I care about 32 billionaires maximizing their profit.

If the overriding concern for you is that you get paid whatever teeny tiny millionth of a percent of what gets made off this, then by all means.But I think the majority of people with an interest in this have an overriding interest of being able to see the games on NFL-N at as cheap a price out of their own pocket as possible.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I heard a Comcast guy explain this about a month ago and his explanation was that - yes the NFL wanted it's network as part of the basic cable package BUT they wanted $1 per subscriber. The cable companies are fighting it because they don't feel that every basic cable subscriber wants the NFL network. Comcast has it as part of it's Sports Package so that people that want it can pay an additional charge for it and those that don't want it don't have to pay a fee. The way this read is that the NFL wants all cable subscribers to have their network as basic cable - it makes it sound like the cable companies are the ones looking for the extra money. Kinda hard to figure out who is the one being greedy - my instincts tell me probably both.

As I understand the impasse, the NFL has a per subscriber fee they're charging for the product. By getting on the basic tier, they'll get millions. If it ends up on a sports tier, they'll probably get only 10-20% of that. Cable companies will have to pay those fees, so they're trying to limit the amout they spend on the channel. Of course, the benovelant cable companies will likely up their sports tier pricing by a premium over the cost of the new NFL network offering, therefore making a profit on the network, along with the various ad revenues they'll get during the NFL games. I think this is a case of two billion dollar industries trying to figure out who gets to take our money. They're both greedy.

Right. The NFL wants it on in everyone's house because they'll make more subscriber money, and also will get more viewers which = more advertising revenue.The cable companies want it in a sports tier that has a higher markup because it will be the premium channel in that tier and will vastly increase the number of subscriptions to it, giving them a lot more profit than if it was on the basic tier.The NFL is not taking its stance because it cares about the viewers. The cable companies are not taking their stance because they care about their viewers. Both claim they are, but that is just public relations. If they cared about the viewers it would be offered as a single channel offering (i.e. ala carte) that you could choose or not, without having to get extra channels as part of it, or being forced to have it in the basic lineup.

Right, so whose greed benefits me the most? Do I own any financial part of the NFL? Uh...no. Do I own any financial part of Time Warner? Hell yes, in all those mutual funds and ETFs I own. Advantage: TW. Sorry NFL. I care more about TW maximizing it's profit than I care about 32 billionaires maximizing their profit.

If the overriding concern for you is that you get paid whatever teeny tiny millionth of a percent of what gets made off this, then by all means.But I think the majority of people with an interest in this have an overriding interest of being able to see the games on NFL-N at as cheap a price out of their own pocket as possible.

See I don't care about that. I can see enough NFL games as it is. If I really was desperate to see every NFL game possible, I would have already gotten a Dish and ordered Sunday Ticket. Sorry.

 

[BigJim®]

But I think the majority of people with an interest in this have an overriding interest of being able to see the games on NFL-N at as cheap a price out of their own pocket as possible.

Not me. If you focus on NFL network, you're missing the big picture of what's going on here. Big Ten football and Big Ten basketball are already following the lead of NFL network using this same shakedown in the midwest trying to force their way onto basic cable. If successful, it would force cable companies to pass along that $1 cost to every cable subscriber for each channel, whether they watch it or not. It's a snowball rolling down a hill. Personally I'd rather get NFL network in a sports package for $6 or whatever, seasonal for 3-4 months when I want it, rather than having no choice and paying on a monthly basis (year round) $1.50 for NFL, $1 for Big Ten Basketball, $1 for Big Ten Football, $1 for NBA, $1 for NHL, $1 for MLB, $1 for NCAA basketball, $1 for Nascar, $1 for PGA, $1 for underwater basket weaving, etc. without any say whatsoever in what I'm interested in paying for. Don't laugh; that's where this is headed if the NFL gets its way, because no league would pass on the financial opportunity of getting $1 from fans and non-fans alike on a monthly basis, for programming 95% of the country doesn't give a rats ### about watching.

 

[Road Warriors]

But I think the majority of people with an interest in this have an overriding interest of being able to see the games on NFL-N at as cheap a price out of their own pocket as possible.

Not me. If you focus on NFL network, you're missing the big picture of what's going on here. Big Ten football and Big Ten basketball are already following the lead of NFL network using this same shakedown in the midwest trying to force their way onto basic cable. If successful, it would force cable companies to pass along that $1 cost to every cable subscriber for each channel, whether they watch it or not. It's a snowball rolling down a hill. Personally I'd rather get NFL network in a sports package for $6 or whatever, seasonal for 3-4 months when I want it, rather than having no choice and paying on a monthly basis (year round) $1.50 for NFL, $1 for Big Ten Basketball, $1 for Big Ten Football, $1 for NBA, $1 for NHL, $1 for MLB, $1 for NCAA basketball, $1 for Nascar, $1 for PGA, $1 for underwater basket weaving, etc. without any say whatsoever in what I'm interested in paying for. Don't laugh; that's where this is headed if the NFL gets its way, because no league would pass on the financial opportunity of getting $1 from fans and non-fans alike on a monthly basis, for programming 95% of the country doesn't give a rats ### about watching.

While I appreciate what you're saying, I don't think any of the other entities you mention has the appeal to the masses that would entice the cable companies to make this mainstream. If, lets say, the NHL were to hold a gun to TW's head and demand their product went on basic, TW would summarily laugh them out of the room, and there would be very little public outcry. The NFL is trying to cash in on its popularity by holding games away from the general public, hoping the public will force the hands of the cable giants. I don't think, with the possible exception of NCAA basketball, that any sport will be able to drive enough public outrage to even get the cable giants to blink. And NCAA basketball has so many games on so many channels, it would still be nearly impossible to control. In the end, however this plays out, I don't think will set a precedent for other flegling networks, primarily because it will always be a buisiness decision on the part of the cable companies whether or not to carry a particular channel. The NFL vs. Cable battle is being fought as a PR war, and we, the most vocal fans of the NFL product, are the pawns.