NFL NETWORK - TIME WARNER (1 Viewer)

[There it is]

First I thought TW's stock went down.

Second look at what the NFL is emailing out:

http://view.ed4.net/v/L3IF/KEAARM/REQNQX/W...=1&FORMAT=H

http://view.ed4.net/v/YCLO/EWODP1/FD52Y/KW...=1&FORMAT=H

 

[dollarbill13]

First I thought TW's stock went down.

Second look at what the NFL is emailing out:

http://view.ed4.net/v/L3IF/KEAARM/REQNQX/W...=1&FORMAT=H

http://view.ed4.net/v/YCLO/EWODP1/FD52Y/KW...=1&FORMAT=H

The question I ask is why are people so stuck in their ways having cable that they don't take the easy alternative and get a better product in DirecTV for a better price than cable? Unless you live somewhere that prohibits a satellite dish, I see no reason not to make the switch. Cable TV is absolute garbage and the only "issue" I've heard about satellite is the picture quality during storms. I've had satellite since September and have yet to witness any loss of picture quality.

 

[There it is]

First I thought TW's stock went down.

Second look at what the NFL is emailing out:

http://view.ed4.net/v/L3IF/KEAARM/REQNQX/W...=1&FORMAT=H

http://view.ed4.net/v/YCLO/EWODP1/FD52Y/KW...=1&FORMAT=H

The question I ask is why are people so stuck in their ways having cable that they don't take the easy alternative and get a better product in DirecTV for a better price than cable? Unless you live somewhere that prohibits a satellite dish, I see no reason not to make the switch. Cable TV is absolute garbage and the only "issue" I've heard about satellite is the picture quality during storms. I've had satellite since September and have yet to witness any loss of picture quality.

I hear ya! I switched to Direct TV in Sept also. Because Comcast took over Adelphia in April and won their case against NFLN. Then promptly dropped them (NFLN) from the Digital tier, that I paid for, and offered it back to me for $4.99 a month. ??? So I switched and only had a few storm related outages. Not going back!

 

[cstu]

First I thought TW's stock went down.

Second look at what the NFL is emailing out:

http://view.ed4.net/v/L3IF/KEAARM/REQNQX/W...=1&FORMAT=H

http://view.ed4.net/v/YCLO/EWODP1/FD52Y/KW...=1&FORMAT=H

The question I ask is why are people so stuck in their ways having cable that they don't take the easy alternative and get a better product in DirecTV for a better price than cable? Unless you live somewhere that prohibits a satellite dish, I see no reason not to make the switch. Cable TV is absolute garbage and the only "issue" I've heard about satellite is the picture quality during storms. I've had satellite since September and have yet to witness any loss of picture quality.

For $10 a month you can rent a HDTV DVR so that's a huge incentive for a lot of people.

 

[Sopranos]

First I thought TW's stock went down.

Second look at what the NFL is emailing out:

http://view.ed4.net/v/L3IF/KEAARM/REQNQX/W...=1&FORMAT=H

http://view.ed4.net/v/YCLO/EWODP1/FD52Y/KW...=1&FORMAT=H

The question I ask is why are people so stuck in their ways having cable that they don't take the easy alternative and get a better product in DirecTV for a better price than cable? Unless you live somewhere that prohibits a satellite dish, I see no reason not to make the switch. Cable TV is absolute garbage and the only "issue" I've heard about satellite is the picture quality during storms. I've had satellite since September and have yet to witness any loss of picture quality.

Well lets see. I have had direct tv in 2 houses. I just moved to a 3 story. Now i will say my cable is cheaper and i have highspeed internet. I do not have a home phone line. We use cell phone only. My problem is I have cable in my living room, Family room 3 bedrooms the basement, in the master bath and the garage all for one low price. I watch the games on the internet for NFL network. I miss the other stuff but i like having cable ANYwhere i want without a box at every TV. There is no way im leaving cable.

I cant see paying a hefty price for a service and not being able to use it anywhere i can. Do you have it in your barn or workshop? Did i say i use it in my 28' camper next to the house..

 

[bentley]

First I thought TW's stock went down.

Second look at what the NFL is emailing out:

http://view.ed4.net/v/L3IF/KEAARM/REQNQX/W...=1&FORMAT=H

http://view.ed4.net/v/YCLO/EWODP1/FD52Y/KW...=1&FORMAT=H

The question I ask is why are people so stuck in their ways having cable that they don't take the easy alternative and get a better product in DirecTV for a better price than cable? Unless you live somewhere that prohibits a satellite dish, I see no reason not to make the switch. Cable TV is absolute garbage and the only "issue" I've heard about satellite is the picture quality during storms. I've had satellite since September and have yet to witness any loss of picture quality.

Well lets see. I have had direct tv in 2 houses. I just moved to a 3 story. Now i will say my cable is cheaper and i have highspeed internet. I do not have a home phone line. We use cell phone only. My problem is I have cable in my living room, Family room 3 bedrooms the basement, in the master bath and the garage all for one low price. I watch the games on the internet for NFL network. I miss the other stuff but i like having cable ANYwhere i want without a box at every TV. There is no way im leaving cable.

I've got the same benefit of having cable on five TVs with one box. Also save on the whole deal by bundling cable, home phone, and high speed internet. And the HD channels are included in the standard price. I think the HD DVR is also cheaper with cable, but I'm not sure.

Lots of gross overestimation of the demand for NFLN among the general public in this thread.

 

[Snotbubbles]

First I thought TW's stock went down.

Second look at what the NFL is emailing out:

http://view.ed4.net/v/L3IF/KEAARM/REQNQX/W...=1&FORMAT=H

http://view.ed4.net/v/YCLO/EWODP1/FD52Y/KW...=1&FORMAT=H

The question I ask is why are people so stuck in their ways having cable that they don't take the easy alternative and get a better product in DirecTV for a better price than cable? Unless you live somewhere that prohibits a satellite dish, I see no reason not to make the switch. Cable TV is absolute garbage and the only "issue" I've heard about satellite is the picture quality during storms. I've had satellite since September and have yet to witness any loss of picture quality.

In Philadelphia, in order to watch the Flyers and Sixers you must have ComcastSportsnet. Comcast has not given DirectTV the rights to broadcast their games. I don't think there is anything DirectTV can do since Comcast owns those teams.

 

[Road Warriors]

First I thought TW's stock went down.

Second look at what the NFL is emailing out:

http://view.ed4.net/v/L3IF/KEAARM/REQNQX/W...=1&FORMAT=H

http://view.ed4.net/v/YCLO/EWODP1/FD52Y/KW...=1&FORMAT=H

The question I ask is why are people so stuck in their ways having cable that they don't take the easy alternative and get a better product in DirecTV for a better price than cable? Unless you live somewhere that prohibits a satellite dish, I see no reason not to make the switch. Cable TV is absolute garbage and the only "issue" I've heard about satellite is the picture quality during storms. I've had satellite since September and have yet to witness any loss of picture quality.

In Philadelphia, in order to watch the Flyers and Sixers you must have ComcastSportsnet. Comcast has not given DirectTV the rights to broadcast their games. I don't think there is anything DirectTV can do since Comcast owns those teams.

But Comcast isn't running an ad campaign urging Direct TV viewers to switch to Comcast so they can see the Flyers & Sixers? hmmmmm...

 

[firecrackerfreakshow]

Time Warner rejected their offer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7122002008.html

 

[Challenge Everything]

Time Warner rejected their offer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7122002008.html

In this battle, I am on the cable companies side. Challenge Everything

 

[bcr8f]

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.

I don't want to pay for the ####### Food Network or shopping channels either. What a bunch of bull.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

First I thought TW's stock went down.

Second look at what the NFL is emailing out:

http://view.ed4.net/v/L3IF/KEAARM/REQNQX/W...=1&FORMAT=H

http://view.ed4.net/v/YCLO/EWODP1/FD52Y/KW...=1&FORMAT=H

The question I ask is why are people so stuck in their ways having cable that they don't take the easy alternative and get a better product in DirecTV for a better price than cable? Unless you live somewhere that prohibits a satellite dish, I see no reason not to make the switch. Cable TV is absolute garbage and the only "issue" I've heard about satellite is the picture quality during storms. I've had satellite since September and have yet to witness any loss of picture quality.

Well lets see. I have had direct tv in 2 houses. I just moved to a 3 story. Now i will say my cable is cheaper and i have highspeed internet. I do not have a home phone line. We use cell phone only. My problem is I have cable in my living room, Family room 3 bedrooms the basement, in the master bath and the garage all for one low price. I watch the games on the internet for NFL network. I miss the other stuff but i like having cable ANYwhere i want without a box at every TV. There is no way im leaving cable.

I've got the same benefit of having cable on five TVs with one box. Also save on the whole deal by bundling cable, home phone, and high speed internet. And the HD channels are included in the standard price. I think the HD DVR is also cheaper with cable, but I'm not sure.

Lots of gross overestimation of the demand for NFLN among the general public in this thread.

It makes it almost useless to debate on this website though.

 

[firecrackerfreakshow]

any new info?

 

[moderated]

Time Warner rejected their offer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7122002008.html

In this battle, I am on the cable companies side. Challenge Everything

I never thought i'd side with the cable companies, but in this instance the NFL is being absurd.

As others have said the NFL is grossly over-estimating the appeal of the NFL Network to the general public. I love football and it doesn't even bother me that much missing a few games a year.

 

[greenroom]

Time Warner rejected their offer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7122002008.html

In this battle, I am on the cable companies side. Challenge Everything

I never thought i'd side with the cable companies, but in this instance the NFL is being absurd.

As others have said the NFL is grossly over-estimating the appeal of the NFL Network to the general public. I love football and it doesn't even bother me that much missing a few games a year.

Your kidding right. The NFL offered to have it go to a 3rd party to choose where and what the price would be. from the link:

Goodell wrote in a letter yesterday to Glenn A. Britt, president and chief executive of Time Warner Cable, that the league is willing to have the dispute resolved by binding, "baseball-style" arbitration. Each side would submit a final offer to an arbitrator regarding pricing and distribution of the NFL Network, and the arbitrator would choose one of the proposals. Because the arbitration process could be lengthy, Goodell wrote, the league would allow Time Warner to distribute the NFL Network to all its customers immediately if the cable carrier agrees to submit the dispute to arbitration. The NFL's offer will remain open through Dec. 28, Goodell wrote.

How is this a bad idea? Does the Cable company know they cannot win this which is why they are hoping the NFL buckles to the Cable companies? Looks like the NFL offered a good idea, since we know that neither side is going to give in to each other.

To me this just shows that the Cable companies do not understand what their clients want. IMO

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Time Warner rejected their offer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7122002008.html

In this battle, I am on the cable companies side. Challenge Everything

I never thought i'd side with the cable companies, but in this instance the NFL is being absurd.

As others have said the NFL is grossly over-estimating the appeal of the NFL Network to the general public. I love football and it doesn't even bother me that much missing a few games a year.

Your kidding right. The NFL offered to have it go to a 3rd party to choose where and what the price would be. from the link:

Goodell wrote in a letter yesterday to Glenn A. Britt, president and chief executive of Time Warner Cable, that the league is willing to have the dispute resolved by binding, "baseball-style" arbitration. Each side would submit a final offer to an arbitrator regarding pricing and distribution of the NFL Network, and the arbitrator would choose one of the proposals. Because the arbitration process could be lengthy, Goodell wrote, the league would allow Time Warner to distribute the NFL Network to all its customers immediately if the cable carrier agrees to submit the dispute to arbitration. The NFL's offer will remain open through Dec. 28, Goodell wrote.

How is this a bad idea? Does the Cable company know they cannot win this which is why they are hoping the NFL buckles to the Cable companies? Looks like the NFL offered a good idea, since we know that neither side is going to give in to each other.

To me this just shows that the Cable companies do not understand what their clients want. IMO

I think your last statement is way off. Again, most people are not NFL-aholics. They don't want or care about the NFL Network even if they are football fans. Really. The problem is that having this debate on this board is like pissing into the wind. But I'll use an analogy that I used in older thread that surprisingly didn't get any responses. Let's say that Oprah Winfrey is going to start a TV network. All it shows are episodes of Oprah's shows, with maybe some follow up on some the guests or special events on occasion. She wants it to be on Basic cable because she will make more money from advertising if it is. She is subtly threatening to move all her shows on to this channel and has already moved some shows to this channel. She wants to charge every single cable subscriber $1 more a month to get this channel.

The cable companies say that although she does have great appeal, her channel is a niche program that would fit great on their Home Lifestyles tier of channels, with other channels that meet that description. Already they have a shopping channel on that tier and the new Emeril's cooking channel. They want only people that want those channels to pay an extra $5 a month for them, not every single subscriber. Of course, they want as many people to subscribe to that tier as possible to maximize their profit. And they recognize that that are already some channels that should be in this tier on basic cable, but they want to start somewhere in moving niche channels off of basic cable.

So....who's side are you on? Do you want to pay $1 more a month for a channel you'll never watch, just because there are some hardcore Oprah fans that think the channel should be on basic cable because it's so popular and Oprah is so important to our society?

 

[King of the Wolfies]

The problem with arbitration is that one proposal or the other will be picked and not a compromise. The NFLN is looking to earn about $1 BILLION by charging one of the highest fees and demanding that it be included on basic cable. If this happens, our rates will definitely go up. i just wish we could ala carte our own package. Of the 90ish channels i get on basic and digital tiers, I maybe watch a dozen channels. I could care less about the 3 dozen news, shopping, religious and spanish channels. One once all the network shows start being shown online, i wont even care about the networks any more, since a good old fashioned antennae works just fine.

 

[Walter Slovotsky]

The problem with arbitration is that one proposal or the other will be picked and not a compromise. The NFLN is looking to earn about $1 BILLION by charging one of the highest fees and demanding that it be included on basic cable. If this happens, our rates will definitely go up. i just wish we could ala carte our own package. Of the 90ish channels i get on basic and digital tiers, I maybe watch a dozen channels. I could care less about the 3 dozen news, shopping, religious and spanish channels. One once all the network shows start being shown online, i wont even care about the networks any more, since a good old fashioned antennae works just fine.

The big question is, would you be willing to pay an extra $10-$20 a month to receive just the dozen channels you are interested in?

 

[BigJim®]

Your kidding right. The NFL offered to have it go to a 3rd party to choose where and what the price would be.

from the link:

Goodell wrote in a letter yesterday to Glenn A. Britt, president and chief executive of Time Warner Cable, that the league is willing to have the dispute resolved by binding, "baseball-style" arbitration. Each side would submit a final offer to an arbitrator regarding pricing and distribution of the NFL Network, and the arbitrator would choose one of the proposals.

No offense, but this is a fairly ignorant post. Basically what you are saying is Time Warner should risk having to contract to something other cable companies have not been forced to agree to [i.e. putting this channel on basic, passing along a fee to all subscribers], with a best case scenario being that they get to do what other cable competitors already are free to do contractually [put the channel on a sports tier]. Why in the world would TWC take such a risk rather than simply sticking to their guns? There's zero incentive for Time Warner to take on the risk of the unknown. It would be highly, highly unusual for any business to allow an arbitrator to determine what contractual terms it must agree to. It would not surprise me if this would be the first time a new contract is ever 'negotiated' by a neutral arbitrator. MLB is unique; the Players Association and Owners agreed in a prior contract (the CBA) to use arbitration to determine player salaries under specified circumstances. This isn't like that. Like any busines-to-business contract negotiation, Time Warner should be free to insist on the terms they want to consumate a deal, or be free to walk away from the negotiating table. If TWC customers are so angered that TWC begins to lose business, so be it, they may be forced to rethink their position. That is certainly not the case today.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Your kidding right. The NFL offered to have it go to a 3rd party to choose where and what the price would be.

from the link:

Goodell wrote in a letter yesterday to Glenn A. Britt, president and chief executive of Time Warner Cable, that the league is willing to have the dispute resolved by binding, "baseball-style" arbitration. Each side would submit a final offer to an arbitrator regarding pricing and distribution of the NFL Network, and the arbitrator would choose one of the proposals.

No offense, but this is a fairly ignorant post. Basically what you are saying is Time Warner should risk having to contract to something other cable companies have not been forced to agree to [i.e. putting this channel on basic, passing along a fee to all subscribers], with a best case scenario being that they get to do what other cable competitors already are free to do contractually [put the channel on a sports tier]. Why in the world would TWC take such a risk rather than simply sticking to their guns? There's zero incentive for Time Warner to take on the risk of the unknown. It would be highly, highly unusual for any business to allow an arbitrator to determine what contractual terms it must agree to. It would not surprise me if this would be the first time a new contract is ever 'negotiated' by a neutral arbitrator. MLB is unique; the Players Association and Owners agreed in a prior contract (the CBA) to use arbitration to determine player salaries under specified circumstances. This isn't like that. Like any busines-to-business contract negotiation, Time Warner should be free to insist on the terms they want to consumate a deal, or be free to walk away from the negotiating table. If TWC customers are so angered that TWC begins to lose business, so be it, they may be forced to rethink their position. That is certainly not the case today.

What happened to Capitalism? The marketplace will determine if TWC is making a mistake by not giving in to the NFL.

Bunch of Commies on this board....

 

[Phurfur]

The NFLN's problem is simple. They are a seasonal channel! How many people would want it during the off season. I, for one, will cancel NFLN between now and the end of the SB. I will have to see if their playoff coverage has any value. By putting it in the basic package it would force everyone to pay for it 12 months a year. I have it on a sports package through Cox Cable. Why are they allowed to have this option and Time Warner isn't?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The NFLN's problem is simple. They are a seasonal channel! How many people would want it during the off season. I, for one, will cancel NFLN between now and the end of the SB. I will have to see if their playoff coverage has any value. By putting it in the basic package it would force everyone to pay for it 12 months a year. I have it on a sports package through Cox Cable. Why are they allowed to have this option and Time Warner isn't?

Another of the NFL's inconsistencies. They allow some smaller cable companies to put it on a tier, but not the biggest cable companies. I think what happened was they tried negotiating with the smaller systems first, "lost" those negotiations and had it put on the tier, and then realized that if they "lost" like that with the bigger systems like TW they would really blow their fiscal estimates for ad dollars, so they played hardball with TW and a couple of other bigger systems. If anyone knows differently, please let me know.

 

[TxBuckeye]

The NFLN's problem is simple. They are a seasonal channel! How many people would want it during the off season.

Exactly. Once football season is over, I'd never turn this channel on.

 

[braven112]

The NFLN's problem is simple. They are a seasonal channel! How many people would want it during the off season.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

They are a seasonal channel!

It doesn't have to be though. Give Jamie Dukes a 2 hour daily sports show.

 

[greenroom]

The NFLN's problem is simple. They are a seasonal channel! How many people would want it during the off season.

Exactly. Once football season is over, I'd never turn this channel on.

So I guess thier draft coverage is not worth having...wrongAnd lets not forget about the training camp coverage guess thats not worth having either..wrongSo let me see that would cover March/April and they usually have training camp specials in June/July. That is not even talking about the preseason games that they show.I understand the part time fans.. which I guess there are a lot of on this board.. don't see the value of the channel if you are a football fan.

 

[Bushead]

The problem with arbitration is that one proposal or the other will be picked and not a compromise. The NFLN is looking to earn about $1 BILLION by charging one of the highest fees and demanding that it be included on basic cable. If this happens, our rates will definitely go up. i just wish we could ala carte our own package. Of the 90ish channels i get on basic and digital tiers, I maybe watch a dozen channels. I could care less about the 3 dozen news, shopping, religious and spanish channels. One once all the network shows start being shown online, i wont even care about the networks any more, since a good old fashioned antennae works just fine.

Do you know this for a fact? That is not how any arbitration I have been involved in has worked. In my experience (contruction arbitration) it is very much like a court hearing with an arbitrator in place of a judge. The rules of presenting your case are a little looser, but in the end both sides present thier arguement and based on what is presented the arbitrator decides what is a reasonable settlement.

 

[Phurfur]

The problem with arbitration is that one proposal or the other will be picked and not a compromise. The NFLN is looking to earn about $1 BILLION by charging one of the highest fees and demanding that it be included on basic cable. If this happens, our rates will definitely go up. i just wish we could ala carte our own package. Of the 90ish channels i get on basic and digital tiers, I maybe watch a dozen channels. I could care less about the 3 dozen news, shopping, religious and spanish channels. One once all the network shows start being shown online, i wont even care about the networks any more, since a good old fashioned antennae works just fine.

Do you know this for a fact? That is not how any arbitration I have been involved in has worked. In my experience (contruction arbitration) it is very much like a court hearing with an arbitrator in place of a judge. The rules of presenting your case are a little looser, but in the end both sides present thier arguement and based on what is presented the arbitrator decides what is a reasonable settlement.

What he is describing is binding arbitration, I don't know what the NFL proposed.

 

[Road Warriors]

The problem with arbitration is that one proposal or the other will be picked and not a compromise. The NFLN is looking to earn about $1 BILLION by charging one of the highest fees and demanding that it be included on basic cable. If this happens, our rates will definitely go up. i just wish we could ala carte our own package. Of the 90ish channels i get on basic and digital tiers, I maybe watch a dozen channels. I could care less about the 3 dozen news, shopping, religious and spanish channels. One once all the network shows start being shown online, i wont even care about the networks any more, since a good old fashioned antennae works just fine.

Do you know this for a fact? That is not how any arbitration I have been involved in has worked. In my experience (contruction arbitration) it is very much like a court hearing with an arbitrator in place of a judge. The rules of presenting your case are a little looser, but in the end both sides present thier arguement and based on what is presented the arbitrator decides what is a reasonable settlement.

What he is describing is binding arbitration, I don't know what the NFL proposed.

They proposed binding arbitration. Described as "baseball arbitration" where the arbiter picks one proposal or the other as "most right" In other words, the Cable companies could have to live with the NFLN proposal if they agree to the arbitration.

 

[Road Warriors]

The NFLN's problem is simple. They are a seasonal channel! How many people would want it during the off season.

Exactly. Once football season is over, I'd never turn this channel on.

So I guess thier draft coverage is not worth having...wrongAnd lets not forget about the training camp coverage guess thats not worth having either..wrongSo let me see that would cover March/April and they usually have training camp specials in June/July. That is not even talking about the preseason games that they show.I understand the part time fans.. which I guess there are a lot of on this board.. don't see the value of the channel if you are a football fan.

Serious question...How many people on the basic cable tier are diehard football fans that want draft coverage or training camp coverage? In fact, even during the season, what NFLN programming ( aside from the regular season games ) will pull in viewer ratings that will allow for top tier advertising pricing?

 

[Bushead]

The problem with arbitration is that one proposal or the other will be picked and not a compromise. The NFLN is looking to earn about $1 BILLION by charging one of the highest fees and demanding that it be included on basic cable. If this happens, our rates will definitely go up. i just wish we could ala carte our own package. Of the 90ish channels i get on basic and digital tiers, I maybe watch a dozen channels. I could care less about the 3 dozen news, shopping, religious and spanish channels. One once all the network shows start being shown online, i wont even care about the networks any more, since a good old fashioned antennae works just fine.

Do you know this for a fact? That is not how any arbitration I have been involved in has worked. In my experience (contruction arbitration) it is very much like a court hearing with an arbitrator in place of a judge. The rules of presenting your case are a little looser, but in the end both sides present thier arguement and based on what is presented the arbitrator decides what is a reasonable settlement.

What he is describing is binding arbitration, I don't know what the NFL proposed.

They proposed binding arbitration. Described as "baseball arbitration" where the arbiter picks one proposal or the other as "most right" In other words, the Cable companies could have to live with the NFLN proposal if they agree to the arbitration.

I will have to look at the article again. Binding arbitration in general just means that both parties are bound by whatever decision the arbitrator comes up with. Non-binding arbitration allows either party to litigate the decision if they don't like it. Binding arbitration does not generally mean that the arbitrator is forced to pick one or the other with no middle ground resolution.

 

[Road Warriors]

The problem with arbitration is that one proposal or the other will be picked and not a compromise. The NFLN is looking to earn about $1 BILLION by charging one of the highest fees and demanding that it be included on basic cable. If this happens, our rates will definitely go up. i just wish we could ala carte our own package. Of the 90ish channels i get on basic and digital tiers, I maybe watch a dozen channels. I could care less about the 3 dozen news, shopping, religious and spanish channels. One once all the network shows start being shown online, i wont even care about the networks any more, since a good old fashioned antennae works just fine.

Do you know this for a fact? That is not how any arbitration I have been involved in has worked. In my experience (contruction arbitration) it is very much like a court hearing with an arbitrator in place of a judge. The rules of presenting your case are a little looser, but in the end both sides present thier arguement and based on what is presented the arbitrator decides what is a reasonable settlement.

What he is describing is binding arbitration, I don't know what the NFL proposed.

They proposed binding arbitration. Described as "baseball arbitration" where the arbiter picks one proposal or the other as "most right" In other words, the Cable companies could have to live with the NFLN proposal if they agree to the arbitration.

I will have to look at the article again. Binding arbitration in general just means that both parties are bound by whatever decision the arbitrator comes up with. Non-binding arbitration allows either party to litigate the decision if they don't like it. Binding arbitration does not generally mean that the arbitrator is forced to pick one or the other with no middle ground resolution.

From post 65Basically a cut & paste from the article. That's what I recall seeing.

 

[mad sweeney]

The NFLN's problem is simple. They are a seasonal channel! How many people would want it during the off season.

Exactly. Once football season is over, I'd never turn this channel on.

So I guess thier draft coverage is not worth having...wrongAnd lets not forget about the training camp coverage guess thats not worth having either..wrongSo let me see that would cover March/April and they usually have training camp specials in June/July. That is not even talking about the preseason games that they show.I understand the part time fans.. which I guess there are a lot of on this board.. don't see the value of the channel if you are a football fan.

Serious question...How many people on the basic cable tier are diehard football fans that want draft coverage or training camp coverage? In fact, even during the season, what NFLN programming ( aside from the regular season games ) will pull in viewer ratings that will allow for top tier advertising pricing?

Especially considering that ESPN, a basic cable channel, has the live draft itself. Along with their own pre-draft and combine ceverage. Sure, there's a group of people that will watch anything football related. But for a majority of fans, the channel serves it's purpose from TC-SB and that's it. I'm a die hard fan and if it cost extra to have the NFLN, I wouldn't pay it other than the time frame for watching their games. The numbers just aren't there to support it outside of football season, especially with ESPN giving it away free already.

 

[Rhino]

First I thought TW's stock went down.

Second look at what the NFL is emailing out:

http://view.ed4.net/v/L3IF/KEAARM/REQNQX/W...=1&FORMAT=H

http://view.ed4.net/v/YCLO/EWODP1/FD52Y/KW...=1&FORMAT=H

The question I ask is why are people so stuck in their ways having cable that they don't take the easy alternative and get a better product in DirecTV for a better price than cable? Unless you live somewhere that prohibits a satellite dish, I see no reason not to make the switch. Cable TV is absolute garbage and the only "issue" I've heard about satellite is the picture quality during storms. I've had satellite since September and have yet to witness any loss of picture quality.

Leave cable for DirectTV... no thanks. DirectTV are the biggest crooks in the business.What I don't understand out of this whole arguement is, what did people do before the NFL network existed? Just because the NFL has created their own network and now offer more games, people suddenly think they are entitled to that? Of course you aren't - if you want the extra games you pay the extra money for it. Period. I paid because it was important to me. If it's not important to you, then don't pay. If the price was too unreasonable or out of my budget I wouldn't pay it either - and I'd go back to watching the games offered on network TV just like I've done for years.

Sure, I'd like to see Sunday Ticket available on basic cable too, or even as part of a package on cable. But I don't expect the NFL to go breaking it's contract with DirectTV just because I think it should be available on cable. If I felt it was that important for me to get the Sunday Ticket, I'd go back to DirectTV and get it. (which I did for one season - but was so disgusted by DirectTV's service that I cancelled it and now I go without Sunday Ticket)

What's even worse is that our government now has nothing better to do than threaten the NFL with anti-trust investigations if they don't cave in and offer up NFL network games on network TV. So Goodell is forced to let NBC & CBS have the Pats / Giants game to keep Congress from screwing with the NFL.

 

[BigJim®]

Binding arbitration does not generally mean that the arbitrator is forced to pick one or the other with no middle ground resolution.

The pertinent portion of the NFL proposal was pasted to this thread. Again, a highly unusual proposal that only an absolute fool would agree to:

Goodell wrote in a letter yesterday to Glenn A. Britt, president and chief executive of Time Warner Cable, that the league is willing to have the dispute resolved by binding, "baseball-style" arbitration. Each side would submit a final offer to an arbitrator regarding pricing and distribution of the NFL Network, and the arbitrator would choose one of the proposals.

A person doesn't even need to read between the lines to get what this proposal means. Interpretation: The NFL is willing to accept the terms being proposed by TWC but wants to have some opportunity to get a lucky arbitration award which would bind TWC to terms that are dramatically worse than terms the NFL has with Comcast and other cable providers. Basically, a chip and a chair, and it would prefer to start raking in the cash one way or another without further ado. It would be absolute insanity for TWC to agree to such a screwy proposal. I'd almost go so far as to say they'd be breaching a duty to shareholders to leave the business model up to the discretion of some arbitrator.

 

[GreenNGold]

Leave cable for DirectTV... no thanks. DirectTV are the biggest crooks in the business.What I don't understand out of this whole arguement is, what did people do before the NFL network existed? Just because the NFL has created their own network and now offer more games, people suddenly think they are entitled to that? Of course you aren't - if you want the extra games you pay the extra money for it. Period. I paid because it was important to me. If it's not important to you, then don't pay. If the price was too unreasonable or out of my budget I wouldn't pay it either - and I'd go back to watching the games offered on network TV just like I've done for years.Sure, I'd like to see Sunday Ticket available on basic cable too, or even as part of a package on cable. But I don't expect the NFL to go breaking it's contract with DirectTV just because I think it should be available on cable. If I felt it was that important for me to get the Sunday Ticket, I'd go back to DirectTV and get it. (which I did for one season - but was so disgusted by DirectTV's service that I cancelled it and now I go without Sunday Ticket)What's even worse is that our government now has nothing better to do than threaten the NFL with anti-trust investigations if they don't cave in and offer up NFL network games on network TV. So Goodell is forced to let NBC & CBS have the Pats / Giants game to keep Congress from screwing with the NFL.

I'm not mad that I can't see all of the games on NFLN. I'm mad that they took away my ability to watch my home team play each and every game like I have been able to do every year of my life before the NFLN came around. (The Green Bay / Dallas game this year, and the Green Bay / Minnesota game last year). The biggest game of the year this year to me, and a huge rivalry game last year. Both games I would have always been able to see over years past. Now, suddenly i can't watch them because the NFL decides they aren't making enough money. If they opened up the home ranges to atleast be statewide for local viewing, instead of just 50 miles from a home city, a lot of my anger would go away. I understand I can still go to a bar to watch the game, and did for the green bay / dallas game, but i shouldn't be forced to.

 

[TxBuckeye]

So I guess thier draft coverage is not worth having...wrong

ESPN down??

And lets not forget about the training camp coverage guess thats not worth having either..wrong

Uhm, nothing personal, but no, I wouldn't watch training camp news. I can read it on the team website if I want it.

So let me see that would cover March/April and they usually have training camp specials in June/July. That is not even talking about the preseason games that they show.I understand the part time fans.. which I guess there are a lot of on this board.. don't see the value of the channel if you are a football fan.

I rarely, if ever, watch a preseason football game. Sorry, but everyone isn't that hard core about football.

 

[Aaronstory]

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.

 

[Bushead]

Time Warner rejected their offer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7122002008.html

In this battle, I am on the cable companies side. Challenge Everything

I never thought i'd side with the cable companies, but in this instance the NFL is being absurd.

As others have said the NFL is grossly over-estimating the appeal of the NFL Network to the general public. I love football and it doesn't even bother me that much missing a few games a year.

Oddly enough, I think this board is under-estimating the appeal of the NFL network and the leverage they actually have here. The Packers/Cowboys game this year had the highest cable rating in 14 years. Understood, they don't have much going in the offseason, but realistically the NFL has games going and driving interest for nearly 1/2 of the year. They are only asking for 1/3 of what ESPN gets per subscriber on basic cable. I am sure they feel that a large part of the success ESPN has enjoyed is due to the NFL's success and now they want their piece. Was it fair for ESPN to use ABC, Disney, etc as leverage to have itself placed on basic cable for about 3 times as much as any other channel recieves per subscriber? I am almost certain ESPN2 even gets more than $1 per subsciber. Doesn't it make people upset they have to pay roughly $5 on their basic cable bill to subsidize sports fans via ESPN? Doesn't make either side right, but this isn't the first time a "niche" type channle has tried forced its way onto basic cable. If the NFLN wasn't a big deal to most people, we wouldn't be reading about it in the news every 3 days or having congress debating the merits of our right to watch football. They have a product that people obviously demand. Why should they give up their right to negotiate? If Comcast wasn't losing subscribers over this , do you think they would have issued a cease and desist against the NFL for suggesting that cable subscribers move to someone that carries the NFLN?

Edit to add: Also interesting to note that for instance, Comcast has the Golf channel and Versus on thier basic tier. You would think they should be in the sports tier too, but of course we know why they are not - Comcast owns those channels.

If the cable cos supported ala carte programming this would be a different story all together. The fact is, they don't. They don't care about the customer anymore than the NFLN does, they simply want the carrot to dangle to entice people to send them $5 for a new tier of programming. Bottom line, there is no bad guy here, they are both making a calculated risk on the value (or lack of) of the product. Eventually the market will cause one or both of them to compromise.

But alas, there is good news for this weeks game (also reviews some rating numbers for the games this year)

From TV Week

Quote:

NFL to Air Patriots Game on CBS, NBC

By Jon Lafayette and Chris Pursell

The NFL, under pressure because many cable subscribers were not going to be able to see the potentially historic New England Patriots game on Saturday, has arranged for CBS and NBC to simulcast the game. The game originally was going to air nationally exclusively on the NFL Network.

The Patriots, with a 15-0 record, will be trying to become the first team to go undefeated since the league’s schedule was expanded to 16 games. They are playing against the New York Giants.

“We have taken this extraordinary step because it is in the best interest of our fans,” NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said in a statement. “What we have seen for the past year is a very strong consumer demand for NFL Network. We appreciate CBS and NBC delivering the NFL Network telecast on Saturday night to the broad audience that deserves to see this potentially historic game. Our commitment to the NFL Network is stronger than ever.”

CBS and NBC will carry the NFL Network feed of the game with Bryant Gumbel and Cris Collinsworth in the broadcast booth. The game also will be televised by WCVB-ABC (Channel 5) in Boston, WMUR-ABC in Manchester, New Hampshire (Channel 9) and WWOR (Channel 9) in New York. The telecast begins at 8 p.m. ET with kickoff set at 8:15 p.m. ET.

In recent weeks, the Patriots have delivered the two biggest ratings of the year (a 20.1 in Week 9 and week 14's 18.4), the biggest NBC Saturday Night Football rating ever (13.4 in Week 12), and the biggest NFL cable rating ever (11.1 in Week 13).

With multiple cable systems still at odds with the NFL Network over carriage fees, the shift will allow fans throughout the country access to the game.

Only a fraction of subscribers of Comcast, which covers much of the New England area, and Time Warner Cable, would have been able to see the game on NFL Network. Comcast carries NFL Network on a special sports tier and Time Warner Cable has no carriage agreement with NFL Network.

Politicians, including Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, have been urging the cable operators and the league to come to an agreement so that more fans can see the game.

“NFL Network is a programming service of great interest to fans and should be broadly distributed by the cable industry,” said NFL Network President and CEO Steve Bornstein.

The game marks the first three-network simulcast in NFL history and the first simulcast of any kind of an NFL game since the first Super Bowl in 1967 when CBS and NBC both televised the first meeting of the champions of the newly merged National Football League and American Football League.

 

[switz]

I think your last statement is way off. Again, most people are not NFL-aholics. They don't want or care about the NFL Network even if they are football fans. Really. The problem is that having this debate on this board is like pissing into the wind. But I'll use an analogy that I used in older thread that surprisingly didn't get any responses.

The ONLY reason I get cable is due to football, and I go down to broadcast during the offseason, then back up to basic in-season to catch MNF (even though those games are dreadful). Given the NFL Network on basic, I might keep it all year round.FYI - I doubt every subscriber watches Discovery, or Food Network, or HGTV, or Speed (does anyone?), yet the cable companies pay per subscriber for those.

 

[Big Score]

The problem with arbitration is that one proposal or the other will be picked and not a compromise. The NFLN is looking to earn about $1 BILLION by charging one of the highest fees and demanding that it be included on basic cable. If this happens, our rates will definitely go up. i just wish we could ala carte our own package. Of the 90ish channels i get on basic and digital tiers, I maybe watch a dozen channels. I could care less about the 3 dozen news, shopping, religious and spanish channels. One once all the network shows start being shown online, i wont even care about the networks any more, since a good old fashioned antennae works just fine.

The big question is, would you be willing to pay an extra $10-$20 a month to receive just the dozen channels you are interested in?

Lets see....I can either pay $50 to $60 per month to watch the dozen chanells I want & get a bunch of other crap I don't...~ or ~ I can pay $10 to $20 per month to watch the dozen chanells I want & cut out the other crap...I wonder which option I'd prefer

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I wonder if everyone knows how slowly ESPN started out as a channel. If ala Carte was around then, they likely would not be here today. They had to slowly get better ratings via word of mouth so they could get on basic cable, start charging more money for ads and then afford the rights fees to football, basketball, baseball, etc.