Remain calm....all is well Time Warner customers (1 Viewer)

[joffer]

from PFT:

CONGRESS "INTRIGUED" BY NFLNThe Associated Press reports that Congress is taking a look at the plans of the NFL's in-house television network to air regular-season games."We're intrigued, to put it mildly," Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said during hearings held on Tuesday.The Senate Judiciary Committee is analyzung whether the NFL's plan to air its own games on its own network raises antitrust issues. In our view, the hearings suggest that perhaps Time Warner -- the league's primary adversary in a high-stakes game of cable chicken which soon will boil over when the best game on Thanksgiving isn't available in many markets -- has enough juice in D.C. to make trouble for the NFL.The hearings first were mentioned earlier in the day by Gregg Easterbook's TMQ on ESPN.com's Page 2. Testifying at the hearing were NFL executive V.P. and general counsel Jeff Pash, DirecTV executive V.P. Daniel Fawcett, and Time Warner C.O.O. Landel Hobbs. Easterbrook suggests (and we agree) that the NFL should move quickly to make the Sunday Ticket package available via cable. We also think that the league should bury the hatchet with Time Warner pronto, working out a deal that makes NFLN available to millions of consumers who don't presently get it.

 

[yellowdog]

from PFT:

CONGRESS "INTRIGUED" BY NFLNThe Associated Press reports that Congress is taking a look at the plans of the NFL's in-house television network to air regular-season games."We're intrigued, to put it mildly," Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said during hearings held on Tuesday.The Senate Judiciary Committee is analyzung whether the NFL's plan to air its own games on its own network raises antitrust issues. In our view, the hearings suggest that perhaps Time Warner -- the league's primary adversary in a high-stakes game of cable chicken which soon will boil over when the best game on Thanksgiving isn't available in many markets -- has enough juice in D.C. to make trouble for the NFL.The hearings first were mentioned earlier in the day by Gregg Easterbook's TMQ on ESPN.com's Page 2. Testifying at the hearing were NFL executive V.P. and general counsel Jeff Pash, DirecTV executive V.P. Daniel Fawcett, and Time Warner C.O.O. Landel Hobbs. Easterbrook suggests (and we agree) that the NFL should move quickly to make the Sunday Ticket package available via cable. We also think that the league should bury the hatchet with Time Warner pronto, working out a deal that makes NFLN available to millions of consumers who don't presently get it.

I won't hold my breath. But, PLEASE let this happen. Amen.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

from PFT:

CONGRESS "INTRIGUED" BY NFLNThe Associated Press reports that Congress is taking a look at the plans of the NFL's in-house television network to air regular-season games."We're intrigued, to put it mildly," Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said during hearings held on Tuesday.The Senate Judiciary Committee is analyzung whether the NFL's plan to air its own games on its own network raises antitrust issues. In our view, the hearings suggest that perhaps Time Warner -- the league's primary adversary in a high-stakes game of cable chicken which soon will boil over when the best game on Thanksgiving isn't available in many markets -- has enough juice in D.C. to make trouble for the NFL.The hearings first were mentioned earlier in the day by Gregg Easterbook's TMQ on ESPN.com's Page 2. Testifying at the hearing were NFL executive V.P. and general counsel Jeff Pash, DirecTV executive V.P. Daniel Fawcett, and Time Warner C.O.O. Landel Hobbs. Easterbrook suggests (and we agree) that the NFL should move quickly to make the Sunday Ticket package available via cable. We also think that the league should bury the hatchet with Time Warner pronto, working out a deal that makes NFLN available to millions of consumers who don't presently get it.

I won't hold my breath. But, PLEASE let this happen. Amen.

Agreed 100%

 

[Liquid Tension]

from PFT:

CONGRESS "INTRIGUED" BY NFLNThe Associated Press reports that Congress is taking a look at the plans of the NFL's in-house television network to air regular-season games."We're intrigued, to put it mildly," Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said during hearings held on Tuesday.The Senate Judiciary Committee is analyzung whether the NFL's plan to air its own games on its own network raises antitrust issues. In our view, the hearings suggest that perhaps Time Warner -- the league's primary adversary in a high-stakes game of cable chicken which soon will boil over when the best game on Thanksgiving isn't available in many markets -- has enough juice in D.C. to make trouble for the NFL.The hearings first were mentioned earlier in the day by Gregg Easterbook's TMQ on ESPN.com's Page 2. Testifying at the hearing were NFL executive V.P. and general counsel Jeff Pash, DirecTV executive V.P. Daniel Fawcett, and Time Warner C.O.O. Landel Hobbs. Easterbrook suggests (and we agree) that the NFL should move quickly to make the Sunday Ticket package available via cable. We also think that the league should bury the hatchet with Time Warner pronto, working out a deal that makes NFLN available to millions of consumers who don't presently get it.

I won't hold my breath. But, PLEASE let this happen. Amen.

Agreed 100%

It is really sad that NOW this is comes up. I mean we all knew this at teh start of the year and now they have to hurry to make a decision?

 

[RIM]

Please save us Congress! Forget about time spent on other issues, America NEEDS its football!

SAVE US!

 

[Tat]

maybe that will drop the price for us satellite users?

 

[AcerFC]

Is it sad to say that I have been dreaming of the NFL Sunday ticket on cable, just asking to see if I am the only one

 

[CheeseHead]

Anyone heard anything in regards to this matter with Charter ?

 

[FFdork]

Given the amount of $ DirecTV paid for the exclusive rights, I'm pretty sure anything any move to force the NFL to make the Ticket immediately available on cable will get tied up in the courts.

However, if widening the market for the Ticket would result in a price drop, I'd be all for it. The current price is to the point that it may not be in the budget for my household next year, which would make me very sad. I find it especially ridiculous that they want me to give them a lot more $ to get the games in HD...I could see paying $30-40 more, but $100+ for 'Superfan' is crap IMO.

 

[trogg78]

Why doesnt the NFL like me?

 

[Gargoylez]

If it means a 5 dollar hike in my cable rate, then NO THANK YOU. Ill listen to the radio.

 

[yellowdog]

If it means a 5 dollar hike in my cable rate, then NO THANK YOU. Ill listen to the radio.

I would gladly pay an extra $5 for NFLN.

 

[packersfan]

Anyone heard anything in regards to this matter with Charter ?

Charter had the NFL Network at one time as opposed to Time Warner. Not sure why Charter isn't involved in this somehow.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

If it means a 5 dollar hike in my cable rate, then NO THANK YOU. Ill listen to the radio.

I would gladly pay an extra $5 for NFLN.

Problem is that they'll make you pay $19.99 for the "SuperSportsFan package", giving you NFLN, the Oh Lance! Network, ESPN Desportes, and 5 channels of Fox Soccer and Cricket Network. Or Combine this with 3 premium channel packages for an ExtremePlatinumDigitalAdvantage plan for only $62.99 - a $3 savings!!!!Just bend over and grab your ankles...

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

If it means a 5 dollar hike in my cable rate, then NO THANK YOU. Ill listen to the radio.

I would gladly pay an extra $5 for NFLN.

Problem is that they'll make you pay $19.99 for the "SuperSportsFan package", giving you NFLN, the Oh Lance! Network, ESPN Desportes, and 5 channels of Fox Soccer and Cricket Network. Or Combine this with 3 premium channel packages for an ExtremePlatinumDigitalAdvantage plan for only $62.99 - a $3 savings!!!!Just bend over and grab your ankles...

As opposed to what? I get like 500 channels I don't want. Heck I don't even know some of the channels I even have. All for what, so I can subscribe to a couple of channels I do want. The way cable companys structure their channle packages has had me bending over forever. If I want to pay $5 for the NFLN I should be able to, screw Time Warner.

 

[FBGirl79]

Is it sad to say that I have been dreaming of the NFL Sunday ticket on cable, just asking to see if I am the only one

You aren't the only one...I've been praying this happens soon. I tried to get Direct TV before the season started and when they came to install it, they said there were too many trees around my condo so cable offering the Sunday Ticket is my only chance (short of moving or cutting down a hundred trees which is tempting).

 

[Mungo Burrows]

If it means a 5 dollar hike in my cable rate, then NO THANK YOU. Ill listen to the radio.

I would gladly pay an extra $5 for NFLN.

Problem is that they'll make you pay $19.99 for the "SuperSportsFan package", giving you NFLN, the Oh Lance! Network, ESPN Desportes, and 5 channels of Fox Soccer and Cricket Network. Or Combine this with 3 premium channel packages for an ExtremePlatinumDigitalAdvantage plan for only $62.99 - a $3 savings!!!!Just bend over and grab your ankles...

As opposed to what? I get like 500 channels I don't want. Heck I don't even know some of the channels I even have. All for what, so I can subscribe to a couple of channels I do want. The way cable companys structure their channle packages has had me bending over forever. If I want to pay $5 for the NFLN I should be able to, screw Time Warner.

Uh... that was my point. They won't let you just pay $5 for NFLN. They will bury it in some package with a bunch of channels nobody wants and make you pay until it hurts.

 

[Gargoylez]

If it means a 5 dollar hike in my cable rate, then NO THANK YOU. Ill listen to the radio.

I would gladly pay an extra $5 for NFLN.

Problem is that they'll make you pay $19.99 for the "SuperSportsFan package", giving you NFLN, the Oh Lance! Network, ESPN Desportes, and 5 channels of Fox Soccer and Cricket Network. Or Combine this with 3 premium channel packages for an ExtremePlatinumDigitalAdvantage plan for only $62.99 - a $3 savings!!!!Just bend over and grab your ankles...

As opposed to what? I get like 500 channels I don't want. Heck I don't even know some of the channels I even have. All for what, so I can subscribe to a couple of channels I do want. The way cable companys structure their channle packages has had me bending over forever. If I want to pay $5 for the NFLN I should be able to, screw Time Warner.

THe point is... and what Time Warner is saying.... They can't ask EVERYONE to accept a rate hike because of one channel that only a certain amount of people will watch.How that is different from other rate hikes I dont know... but they dont think it is fair to the non football fans.I pay enough already, I can live with out NFL network.

 

[The_Man]

DirecTV paid $3.5 billion for a 5-year exclusive deal with the NFL for Sunday Ticket. Obviously, DirecTV paid a huge premium in order to attract people (like me) who would never get DirecTV except for Sunday Ticket.

There's no way Congress is going to be able to come in and suddenly make the NFL waive that exclusivity.

 

[Stringer Bell]

when does that 5 year exclusivity end?

 

[GregR_2]

DirecTV paid $3.5 billion for a 5-year exclusive deal with the NFL for Sunday Ticket. Obviously, DirecTV paid a huge premium in order to attract people (like me) who would never get DirecTV except for Sunday Ticket.There's no way Congress is going to be able to come in and suddenly make the NFL waive that exclusivity.

I'm not a lawyer so this is just average Joe speculation... but I would think there might be a significant difference between an exclusive contract with someone else, and broadcasting it on your own channel.With Sunday Ticket, anyone could have come in and bid on it. The deal might be exclusive in that only 1 place gets the contract, but every company that wanted to compete for it had the ability to compete for it and so you'd think that wouldn't be exclusive in a monopolistic sense.But if the NFL is going to broadcast the game on its own network, there is no chance for the other companies to compete for the rights to the broadcast becaues it is never put out for bid. That would seem like it might be the kind of exclusivity that might violate the anti-trust laws.

 

[rhawkins68]

I would think there are more important issues.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Is it sad to say that I have been dreaming of the NFL Sunday ticket on cable, just asking to see if I am the only one

I have Cable AND direct TV and the DTV is ONLY for the NFL package. Yes please get the NFL package

 

[Liquid Tension]

DirecTV paid $3.5 billion for a 5-year exclusive deal with the NFL for Sunday Ticket. Obviously, DirecTV paid a huge premium in order to attract people (like me) who would never get DirecTV except for Sunday Ticket.There's no way Congress is going to be able to come in and suddenly make the NFL waive that exclusivity.

I'm not a lawyer so this is just average Joe speculation... but I would think there might be a significant difference between an exclusive contract with someone else, and broadcasting it on your own channel.With Sunday Ticket, anyone could have come in and bid on it. The deal might be exclusive in that only 1 place gets the contract, but every company that wanted to compete for it had the ability to compete for it and so you'd think that wouldn't be exclusive in a monopolistic sense.But if the NFL is going to broadcast the game on its own network, there is no chance for the other companies to compete for the rights to the broadcast becaues it is never put out for bid. That would seem like it might be the kind of exclusivity that might violate the anti-trust laws.

Someone should get a link so that our voices could be heard. I would like to see the NFL package be available to more than just the satellite companies (does the Dish Network have it as well?) If Dish has it as well that would appear controlling the market.When did DTV give 3.5 billion for the NFL package?

 

[fatness king]

when does that 5 year exclusivity end?

They just renewed, contract expires 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Sunday_Ticket"Currently, DirecTV has an exclusive deal with the NFL, making them the sole provider of NFL Sunday Ticket in the United States until the contract expires in 2010, though past history suggests DirecTV will renew the contract by then in order to maintain one of its key marketing pitches to potential subscribers."

I don't think anything will change with Sunday Ticket, but I would like NFLN back on TW. But I'm also not buying it in a bundled package if they try to screw me.

 

[Stringer Bell]

From a biz standpoint. one of the sat provideres will always be willing to pay more than the cable companies...

It is their draw for customers to leave cable (essentially the default) and generate more clients. THhe cable companies wouldnt draw new clients per se...only charge for the service.

You will never be able to et all of the games until you get direct TV.

plus...which cable company would bid...say time warner won...what about cablevision or comcast or sbc....

 

[GregR_2]

...Someone should get a link so that our voices could be heard. I would like to see the NFL package be available to more than just the satellite companies (does the Dish Network have it as well?) If Dish has it as well that would appear controlling the market.When did DTV give 3.5 billion for the NFL package?

No, Dish doesn't have it. It's exclusive with DTV. If anyone else wanted it they should have bid more on it.Again, not a lawyer, but I haven't heard that exclusive agreements violate anti-trust. They are all over the place in our society. If Dish and all the cable companies had an equal chance to bid on Sunday Ticket, then I don't think it would be deemed a monopoly.I think Stringer Bell said it well... ST isn't worth as much to the cable companies because it isn't the new customer draw for them that it is for DTV.

 

[Sidewinder16]

But if the NFL is going to broadcast the game on its own network, there is no chance for the other companies to compete for the rights to the broadcast becaues it is never put out for bid. That would seem like it might be the kind of exclusivity that might violate the anti-trust laws.

Is this fundamentally any different than what HBO* does (broadcasting their own movies and series, produced "in house", on their own network)?*ETA: Or any/every other network that does the same thing.

 

[wpellis]

I have had DTV, Dish, and TWC. I got fed up and cancelled time warner cable last week. Why should I pay a ridiculous amount of money for several hundered channels that I don't watch, and can't get the channel I want? I only watched a few channels anyway... the OTA (over the air) networks, TNT, ESPN and the wife's HGTV. I look forward to the day when everything that's not OTA will be pay per view... that's what Congress should be looking at. Until then, my rabbit ears pick up all the local OTA channels in high definition just fine, and it looks better and crisper than either cable or satellite.

 

[GregR_2]

But if the NFL is going to broadcast the game on its own network, there is no chance for the other companies to compete for the rights to the broadcast becaues it is never put out for bid. That would seem like it might be the kind of exclusivity that might violate the anti-trust laws.

Is this fundamentally any different than what HBO* does (broadcasting their own movies and series, produced "in house", on their own network)?*ETA: Or any/every other network that does the same thing.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I would think it would be different. If HBO doesn't bid out the broadcast rights to the Sopranos, that doesn't preclude other networks ability to air similar programming.However, the NFL is the only real source for the entire type of product (upper tier professional football) it produces. That's where the monopoly comes in. Showtime can go somewhere else and buy a similar product at the very least, but you can't do that with NFL games. The NFL's actions are much more monopolistic than HBO's.That said, I'd have to think that only broadcasting a few games on NFLN would be easier to get past anti-trust than making the NFL on NFLN exclusively. But, I don't know, even the few games might be enough for trouble.

 

[GregR_2]

Was Wiki'ing anti-trust stuff, and this kind of gets at what I was talking about when comparing the NFL and HBO:

There are two main kinds of monopolies: de jure monoplies, which are those that are protected from competition by government actions and de facto monopolies which are not protected by law from competition but are simply the only supplier of a good or service. Advocates of laissez-faire capitalism advocate that the only type of monopoly that should be broken up is a coercive monopoly, which is the exclusive control of a vitally needed resource, good, or service such that the community is at the mercy of the controller. There are no suppliers of the same or substitute goods to which the consumer can turn. In such a monopoly, the monopolist is able to make pricing and production decisions without an eye on competitive market forces and is able to curtail production to price gouge consumers. Laissez-faire advocates argue that such a monopoly (with monopoly being defined as a persistent, rather than transient, condition) can only come about through the use of physical coercion or fraud by the corporation or by government intervention and that there is no case of a coercive monopoly ever existing that was not the result of protectionist intervention.

It's also interesting to note that the present NFL couldn't have formed (as in, the AFL-NFL merger) because of anti-trust legislation, except that Congress made an exception for them:

The features of the merger depended on the passage of a law by the 89th United States Congress, exempting the merged league from antitrust law sanctions. When NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle and other professional football executives appeared before the Congress' Subcommittee on Antitrust, chaired by New York congressman Emanuel Celler, two points were repeatedly made:

* Rozelle promised that if the merger was allowed, no existing professional football franchise of either league would be moved from any city

* Stadiums seating 50,000 were declared to be adequate for professional football's needs.

Eventually, Congress passed the new law to permit the merger to proceed.

 

[videoguy505]

DirecTV paid $3.5 billion for a 5-year exclusive deal with the NFL for Sunday Ticket. Obviously, DirecTV paid a huge premium in order to attract people (like me) who would never get DirecTV except for Sunday Ticket.There's no way Congress is going to be able to come in and suddenly make the NFL waive that exclusivity.

I'm not a lawyer so this is just average Joe speculation... but I would think there might be a significant difference between an exclusive contract with someone else, and broadcasting it on your own channel.With Sunday Ticket, anyone could have come in and bid on it. The deal might be exclusive in that only 1 place gets the contract, but every company that wanted to compete for it had the ability to compete for it and so you'd think that wouldn't be exclusive in a monopolistic sense.But if the NFL is going to broadcast the game on its own network, there is no chance for the other companies to compete for the rights to the broadcast becaues it is never put out for bid. That would seem like it might be the kind of exclusivity that might violate the anti-trust laws.

Hilariously, the other networks did bid, IIRC, at least for which game to broadcast on Thanksgiving. NFLN "won" the big game.

 

[GregR_2]

DirecTV paid $3.5 billion for a 5-year exclusive deal with the NFL for Sunday Ticket. Obviously, DirecTV paid a huge premium in order to attract people (like me) who would never get DirecTV except for Sunday Ticket.There's no way Congress is going to be able to come in and suddenly make the NFL waive that exclusivity.

I'm not a lawyer so this is just average Joe speculation... but I would think there might be a significant difference between an exclusive contract with someone else, and broadcasting it on your own channel.With Sunday Ticket, anyone could have come in and bid on it. The deal might be exclusive in that only 1 place gets the contract, but every company that wanted to compete for it had the ability to compete for it and so you'd think that wouldn't be exclusive in a monopolistic sense.But if the NFL is going to broadcast the game on its own network, there is no chance for the other companies to compete for the rights to the broadcast becaues it is never put out for bid. That would seem like it might be the kind of exclusivity that might violate the anti-trust laws.

Hilariously, the other networks did bid, IIRC, at least for which game to broadcast on Thanksgiving. NFLN "won" the big game.

Can you give a link for that? It's the first I've heard of it. If true, it would seem it would help the NFL's argument, though I suppose there could also be the "but you're paying yourself there" argument that it was just a sham bid.

 

[MeatMops]

Time Warner is wanting to put the NFLN in a "sports" package. That way, only folks who are interested in getting the sports channels involved are forced to pay for them.

The NFL will not accept this (at least according to Time Warner) and is requiring that NFLN be included in the "basic" cable channel setup. This would then force the additional cost onto all Time Warner customers.

I'm a big NFL fan, and a big Cowboys fan outside their home market - so I stand to miss games I want to see. But this is one time I'm on the cable companies side. The NFL is basically holding the football fans hostage here - and demanding a ridulously exhorbiant price IMO. They can kiss off.

 

[Bri]

Can you give a link for that? It's the first I've heard of it. If true, it would seem it would help the NFL's argument, though I suppose there could also be the "but you're paying yourself there" argument that it was just a sham bid.

bottom of this page alludes to that being the next package bid uponhttp://www.nfl.com/news/story/8397476

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Time Warner is wanting to put the NFLN in a "sports" package. That way, only folks who are interested in getting the sports channels involved are forced to pay for them.The NFL will not accept this (at least according to Time Warner) and is requiring that NFLN be included in the "basic" cable channel setup. This would then force the additional cost onto all Time Warner customers.I'm a big NFL fan, and a big Cowboys fan outside their home market - so I stand to miss games I want to see. But this is one time I'm on the cable companies side. The NFL is basically holding the football fans hostage here - and demanding a ridulously exhorbiant price IMO. They can kiss off.

This is how I understand it as well and I haven't seen NFLN dispute it: TW wants to put in a sports package and only raise the rates for those customers. NFLN wants them to put it on basic cable like ESPN and raise everyone's rate. TW refused, so NFLN won't let TW get the channel at all, even in the sports package. to NFLN on this one.

 

[Bri]

Time Warner is wanting to put the NFLN in a "sports" package. That way, only folks who are interested in getting the sports channels involved are forced to pay for them.The NFL will not accept this (at least according to Time Warner) and is requiring that NFLN be included in the "basic" cable channel setup. This would then force the additional cost onto all Time Warner customers.I'm a big NFL fan, and a big Cowboys fan outside their home market - so I stand to miss games I want to see. But this is one time I'm on the cable companies side. The NFL is basically holding the football fans hostage here - and demanding a ridulously exhorbiant price IMO. They can kiss off.

TWC doesn't want to pay the price for NFLN. That sports package stuff you mentioned is not wholly true. That would come up after the fact. NFL negotiated with every other market then went at TWC which has the biggest market, NYC. NFL wants them to pay for so many people viewing their product. TWC wants to pay what every other market paid. I read the NFL wanted a significant amount more than some California cable company paid. Population wise+team wise, not knowing actual subscriber #s, that doesn't seem so reasonable. There's been a slew of BS facts thrown about though so who knows what's true. For me, if TWC pays X amount then they increase our bill enough to cover it. I expect that increase so I don't care what the amount is just get me the darn station. I don't like TWC acting as if they foot the bill.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Time Warner is wanting to put the NFLN in a "sports" package. That way, only folks who are interested in getting the sports channels involved are forced to pay for them.The NFL will not accept this (at least according to Time Warner) and is requiring that NFLN be included in the "basic" cable channel setup. This would then force the additional cost onto all Time Warner customers.I'm a big NFL fan, and a big Cowboys fan outside their home market - so I stand to miss games I want to see. But this is one time I'm on the cable companies side. The NFL is basically holding the football fans hostage here - and demanding a ridulously exhorbiant price IMO. They can kiss off.

TWC doesn't want to pay the price for NFLN. That sports package stuff you mentioned is not wholly true. That would come up after the fact. NFL negotiated with every other market then went at TWC which has the biggest market, NYC. NFL wants them to pay for so many people viewing their product. TWC wants to pay what every other market paid. I read the NFL wanted a significant amount more than some California cable company paid. Population wise+team wise, not knowing actual subscriber #s, that doesn't seem so reasonable. There's been a slew of BS facts thrown about though so who knows what's true. For me, if TWC pays X amount then they increase our bill enough to cover it. I expect that increase so I don't care what the amount is just get me the darn station. I don't like TWC acting as if they foot the bill.

And I don't like the NFLN telling TWC how to run their business.

 

[creeps1313]

You notice this is picking up speed again now that the first game on NFLN is basically a week away. Ive said all along that the NFLN will be up and running again in time for next Thursdays game.

 

[Bri]

Time Warner is wanting to put the NFLN in a "sports" package. That way, only folks who are interested in getting the sports channels involved are forced to pay for them.The NFL will not accept this (at least according to Time Warner) and is requiring that NFLN be included in the "basic" cable channel setup. This would then force the additional cost onto all Time Warner customers.I'm a big NFL fan, and a big Cowboys fan outside their home market - so I stand to miss games I want to see. But this is one time I'm on the cable companies side. The NFL is basically holding the football fans hostage here - and demanding a ridulously exhorbiant price IMO. They can kiss off.

This is how I understand it as well and I haven't seen NFLN dispute it: TW wants to put in a sports package and only raise the rates for those customers. NFLN wants them to put it on basic cable like ESPN and raise everyone's rate. TW refused, so NFLN won't let TW get the channel at all, even in the sports package. to NFLN on this one.

It's just not true though. I had NFLN up until a couple months back and had to get "the digital package" if I wanted it. TWC bought Adelphia my previous cable co. I didn't have to get some sports package. NFL and a judge OKd continuing this, albeit way too briefly. There's plenty of articles about the NFL supporting this and the judge's ruling and all, even threads here.

 

[Bri]

And I don't like the NFLN telling TWC how to run their business.

I agree. I mean NFLN was smart(or had a well thought out plan) getting the other cable companies first then sorta strong arming them to a high price. However, this is done in business in this country lots of times. But one example-Real estate companies buy up all surrounding land and houses to strong arm the one remaining site.

 

[msommer]

Time Warner is wanting to put the NFLN in a "sports" package. That way, only folks who are interested in getting the sports channels involved are forced to pay for them.

The NFL will not accept this (at least according to Time Warner) and is requiring that NFLN be included in the "basic" cable channel setup. This would then force the additional cost onto all Time Warner customers.

I'm a big NFL fan, and a big Cowboys fan outside their home market - so I stand to miss games I want to see. But this is one time I'm on the cable companies side. The NFL is basically holding the football fans hostage here - and demanding a ridulously exhorbiant price IMO. They can kiss off.

This is how I understand it as well and I haven't seen NFLN dispute it: TW wants to put in a sports package and only raise the rates for those customers. NFLN wants them to put it on basic cable like ESPN and raise everyone's rate a lot less. TW refused, so NFLN won't let TW get the channel at all, even in the sports package.

fixedIs NFL the favorite sports in America or what?

Why should the NFL allow the cable companies to bundle their meat and potatoes product with the curling network or other niche channels - thus allowing the cable companies to carry/subsidise these marginal channels - AND again diminishing the audience reached?

If it is on basic cable it reaches everyone and NFL interest and brand awarenes(=sales) soars.

 

[Todem]

Is it sad to say that I have been dreaming of the NFL Sunday ticket on cable, just asking to see if I am the only one

Your not the only one. I don't want a dish. In South Florida we have plenty of afternoon thunder showers and it goes out too often. Cable is more but worth not getting pissed about not having a signal. Please bring the NFL Ticket to Comcast Digital Cable now!!!!!

 

[Rooster]

I don't like TWC acting as if they foot the bill.

Just because the cost will ultimately be passed on to consumers doesn't mean that TWC doesn't have any financial interest in the case. Not all of TWC's customers are NFL fans. Those fans would pay more and gain something they don't care about. I'm betting even an increase of $3-5 is bound to drive a small percentage to explore other options and TWC loses out on revenue they would otherwise have.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

DirecTV paid $3.5 billion for a 5-year exclusive deal with the NFL for Sunday Ticket. Obviously, DirecTV paid a huge premium in order to attract people (like me) who would never get DirecTV except for Sunday Ticket.There's no way Congress is going to be able to come in and suddenly make the NFL waive that exclusivity.

I agree.The more important issue is getting the NFLN on Time-Warner, IMO. The Ticket will remain with DirecTV for the duration of their agreement with the NFL.

 

[Bri]

I don't like TWC acting as if they foot the bill.

Just because the cost will ultimately be passed on to consumers doesn't mean that TWC doesn't have any financial interest in the case. Not all of TWC's customers are NFL fans. Those fans would pay more and gain something they don't care about. I'm betting even an increase of $3-5 is bound to drive a small percentage to explore other options and TWC loses out on revenue they would otherwise have.

that's a fair point

 

[JaxBill]

I just find it humorous that a huge conglomerate like Time-Warner, who are often the only cable choice in a given market, are screaming anti-trust to Congress.

 

[fatness]

"We want you to sell it unfairly like this."

"No, we'd rather sell it unfairly like that."

Notice that neither side is considering offering NFLN as a separate channel, with a separate price, to those who want it. Which is the way it should be.

 

[videoguy505]

Hilariously, the other networks did bid, IIRC, at least for which game to broadcast on Thanksgiving. NFLN "won" the big game.

Can you give a link for that? It's the first I've heard of it. If true, it would seem it would help the NFL's argument, though I suppose there could also be the "but you're paying yourself there" argument that it was just a sham bid.

ESPN.com's (formerly of NFL.com and before that of ESPN.com again) Tuesday Morning Quarterback has been championing the DirecTV monopoly issue for years. From this week's column:

The secondary markets rule is especially offensive because the NFL continues to grant a monopoly over its Sunday Ticket package -- a fabulous product that allows viewers to pay to see any game -- to DirecTV, the satellite provider. DirecTV is great, but since millions of American households cannot receive DirecTV, this monopoly effectively bars viewer choice, even to viewers who happily would pay extra.

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on whether the DirecTV monopoly on Sunday Ticket is anti-consumer and constitutes restraint of trade. Finally, Congress has noticed this issue! TMQ's prediction: The NFL, which seriously does not want Congress rethinking the antitrust exemption granted to the league in 1961 over its television contracts, better move pronto to make Sunday Ticket available to all cable carriers. The 1961 agreement with Congress specifies that in exchange for an antitrust exemption, the NFL will make its broadcasts available to everyone. Instead, the Sunday Ticket broadcast operates under a monopoly structure. Congress is already in a foul mood about the NCAA's tax-exempt status for profitable D-I football. The new Congress will want to differentiate itself from the last by being pro-consumer. The NFL's television contracts are worth nearly $4 billion a year; the league would be foolish to run any risk with that sum. Roger Goodell, change your deal with DirecTV before Congress changes it for you.

...

There's a quiet conspiracy theory holding that the NFL Network, which wants cable carriers to place its product on basic cable, not on a premium-pay digital tier, manipulated the Thanksgiving schedule. Being on basic cable is far more attractive financially than being on premium, because basic goes to most of the country's households and thus is very appealing to advertisers. Time Warner and Comcast are resisting putting the NFL Network on basic cable -- they think the monthly fee the NFL Network is asking is too high. Time Warner has even established a Web site that aggressively denounces NFL Network's money demands. But can any cable carrier resist offering all customers the best access to the most important sport? Now consider the conspiracy angle. Check the Thanksgiving lineup -- a crummy game on CBS (Miami at Detroit), a crummy game on Fox (Tampa at Dallas), and a fantastic game on NFL Network (Denver at Kansas City). Technically the NFL Network bid for television rights to NFL games as an independent firm receiving no special treatment, and technically Harvard doesn't favor the children of big donors, either. The conspiracy theory holds that the league manipulated the Thanksgiving schedule so that when millions of Americans look in their newspaper listings next week and realize Thanksgiving's hot game is on a channel their cable carriers do not provide, they will call Comcast, Time Warner and others to demand that the NFL Network be added to basic cable. Don't be surprised if this happens across the country on the day before Thanksgiving.

 

[videoguy505]

I just find it humorous that a huge conglomerate like Time-Warner, who are often the only cable choice in a given market, are screaming anti-trust to Congress.

I happen to know one of the bigshot Anti-Trust lawyers that handled the Time-Warner mergers. He's damn good. He literally wrote the book on anti-trust regulations (the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act) that the courts use to determine how to rule--the court cases basically turn into him, the government lawyer, and the judge arguing points from his own law book. Mostly his branch of the firm handles mergers, but if they're still involved in Time-Warner's current anti-trust issues, he's a tough man to beat.