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

[Upchuck]

maybe that will drop the price for us satellite users?

You did mean this as right ?

 

[Bri]

Am I missing something?

Jets stadium fight.

I'm assuming you are refering to the MSG ####-block on the Jets stadium in NYC, right?Both sides on this are just protecting their bottom line.

I didn't feel like this was true.MSG is famous worldwide. Most businesses would have trouble getting customers into their "store". They're a lock to be packed. Issues with that business seem to be more about how they staff and divvy out what they take in. Knicks won't affect JetsRangers won't affect JetsWNBA team won't affect JetsConcerts might be a competetive issue in the summer but otherwise MSG is warm+indoors and most acts would probably prefer to play in the famous place and not freeze. MANY acts hit Giants Stadium and MSG.Conventions they've lost to Jacob Javitz center for years and years. If Jets stadium got them, so what.Not having the draft had to hurt. NFL didn't go to another stadium BUT another famous venue Radio City. NFL is really growing amidst the worldwide audience. The thought was that a stadium in NYC would get visitted by alot of foreigners. They'd visit and see the Statue, "ground zero", maybe a play, etc and "catch a game." The Knicks/NBA do plenty well worldwide but if there's a market they haven't saturated it's overseas. New customers is not something Dolan gets often.I never heard these discussed for more than a couple minutes(exc for the foreign point) so I can't imagine it's a Dolan concern. IMO He was just being dopey and feeding his ego. I'd bet he's hit with this again next election. It's just so easy for a candidate to win support if he says he'll bring a pro team to NYC. It'll keep coming up.

 

[Bri]

maybe that will drop the price for us satellite users?

You did mean this as right ?

cable TV price will drop dramatically in the next few years, Direct TV will too. These dopes don't realize how much TV is on the web for free. The phone companies being able to offer cable TV thru their fiber optic lines are also more competitiion. Eventually they'll have to charge less.Check out how many million people use VOIP and how fast. TV over the web will be similarly popular real quick too IMO. VOIP is 20-25 bucks. Cable TV, reliably, offerred that cheap by anyone and it'll change things

 

[idhitit]

Man, the NFL must not have very much faith in their programming to take this stance. They obviously don't believe a significant percentage of viewers want their programming enough to pay for it, so they want the cable companies to stuff it down their customers throats. I say the NFL can go #### themselves on this issue.

 

[GregR_2]

Man, the NFL must not have very much faith in their programming to take this stance. They obviously don't believe a significant percentage of viewers want their programming enough to pay for it, so they want the cable companies to stuff it down their customers throats. I say the NFL can go #### themselves on this issue.

I don't think that's a very accurate depiction of the situation. It isn't that they think they won't get many viewers if it is on sports, it's that they won't get as many. I think everyone would agree that more people would watch it if it is on basic cable than if it is on the sports pack. Every lost viewer results in lost advertising dollars due to lower rates. I'm sure NFLN wants to replace ESPN as the place to go for draft coverage and pregame shows. That isn't going to happen if they are relegated to a sports package since ESPN is on everyone's basic package.I don't really see a reason to side with either TWC or NFLN. Each is just being greedy in their own best interest. I think it's naieve to believe TWC is doing this for altruistic reason. They are doing it to sell more sports packages and being just as greeding as NFLN. Putting it on basic doesn't do much good for TWC's bottom line other than not losing people to DTV. If DTV hadn't been able to use it as a differentiator they probably wouldn't have wanted it on basic either.If either side really cared about the consumer, they'd offer it as a single-channel that can be purchased.

 

[Gr00vus]

Anyone remember when there wasn't cable/satellite and all you got were three games a week, unless your home team was at home in which case you got two? You couldn't go to a friend's house with the ticket, you couldn't go to a sports bar with all the feeds, all you got were a couple of games a week. Man that sucked.

Sorry for the non sequitur I guess in the spirit of thanksgiving I was reminded that in NFL viewing terms, we've got a lot to be thankful for.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Man, the NFL must not have very much faith in their programming to take this stance. They obviously don't believe a significant percentage of viewers want their programming enough to pay for it, so they want the cable companies to stuff it down their customers throats. I say the NFL can go #### themselves on this issue.

I don't think that's a very accurate depiction of the situation. It isn't that they think they won't get many viewers if it is on sports, it's that they won't get as many. I think everyone would agree that more people would watch it if it is on basic cable than if it is on the sports pack. Every lost viewer results in lost advertising dollars due to lower rates. I'm sure NFLN wants to replace ESPN as the place to go for draft coverage and pregame shows. That isn't going to happen if they are relegated to a sports package since ESPN is on everyone's basic package.I don't really see a reason to side with either TWC or NFLN. Each is just being greedy in their own best interest. I think it's naieve to believe TWC is doing this for altruistic reason. They are doing it to sell more sports packages and being just as greeding as NFLN. Putting it on basic doesn't do much good for TWC's bottom line other than not losing people to DTV. If DTV hadn't been able to use it as a differentiator they probably wouldn't have wanted it on basic either.If either side really cared about the consumer, they'd offer it as a single-channel that can be purchased.

If I'm a Time Warner shareholder, I'm pretty happy with their stance. Greedy or not.

 

[Sleeper 43]

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.

So they can't make it an optional package so those that dont want it dont have to pay for it?It may be bundled with some other channels but having an opportunity to get it at all is better than nothing.I thought it was crazy when the games went off public TV to be honest. Some of the most hardcore fans are in poverty and dont have access to cable tv let alone direct tv. I live in the Washington Dc area and was born here so i can only speak for skins fans but now when you go to the stadium its a middle-upper class environment due to the high cost of going to a Daniel Snyder football game.I really think the NFL network hurt itself the day NFL games started going to cable and Direct TV. I dont mind the NFL network but keep it as a "bonus" to the NFL fan and not an excluysive source to watch NFL games. Soon only the rich will be able to watch as games are shown elclusivley in High-Def in the name of making more money at the expense of the fan base.

 

[SteveUK]

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.

So they can't make it an optional package so those that dont want it dont have to pay for it?It may be bundled with some other channels but having an opportunity to get it at all is better than nothing.

No they can't - because NFLN won't let them. I'm guessing you haven't kept up with this issue NFLN care only about how much money they can squeeze out of TWC - they figure that if they tough it out until games are actually being broadcast, consumers will complain and/or walk so much that TWC will cave.TWC care about holding onto the subscribers they already have - they know they are not going to get NFL fans as new subscribers when Directv has the Ticket. Presumably, they do not think they will actually lose many subscribers over NFLN. I think they are probably right in this respect, and thats why they are not going to cave.Personally, I would love to get NFLN but not so much that I'm willing to pay DirectTV's exorbitant prices.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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.

So they can't make it an optional package so those that dont want it dont have to pay for it?It may be bundled with some other channels but having an opportunity to get it at all is better than nothing.

No they can't - because NFLN won't let them. I'm guessing you haven't kept up with this issue NFLN care only about how much money they can squeeze out of TWC - they figure that if they tough it out until games are actually being broadcast, consumers will complain and/or walk so much that TWC will cave.TWC care about holding onto the subscribers they already have - they know they are not going to get NFL fans as new subscribers when Directv has the Ticket. Presumably, they do not think they will actually lose many subscribers over NFLN. I think they are probably right in this respect, and thats why they are not going to cave.Personally, I would love to get NFLN but not so much that I'm willing to pay DirectTV's exorbitant prices.

We had to go all the way to the UK, but someone finally gets it.

 

[Pipes]

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.

So they can't make it an optional package so those that dont want it dont have to pay for it?It may be bundled with some other channels but having an opportunity to get it at all is better than nothing.

No they can't - because NFLN won't let them. I'm guessing you haven't kept up with this issue NFLN care only about how much money they can squeeze out of TWC - they figure that if they tough it out until games are actually being broadcast, consumers will complain and/or walk so much that TWC will cave.TWC care about holding onto the subscribers they already have - they know they are not going to get NFL fans as new subscribers when Directv has the Ticket. Presumably, they do not think they will actually lose many subscribers over NFLN. I think they are probably right in this respect, and thats why they are not going to cave.Personally, I would love to get NFLN but not so much that I'm willing to pay DirectTV's exorbitant prices.

I agree with you on just about everything except DirectTV's exorbitant prices. I just switched from cable in August and I'm getting about 50 more channels, including the NFLN, than cable and it's about $5/month cheaper. Now if you want to argue that not everyone can get a dish or bad weather disruptions scare you aware from satelite that's fine but strictly from a price standpoint, it's a better value than cable.To me the whole issue is that satelite providers can provide this channel in their base package at an affordable rate...why can't the cable companies?

 

[PMENFAN]

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.

The NFL is holding nobody hostage. Time Warner and other Cable companies are. Football is the #1 sport, hands down. As contracts expire, the NFL network is going to roll more games to their network. It's a business decision. More games are going there. The 8 is a start. Count on that. I don't work there, but I understand business. Cable companies are opposed to 'a la carte pricing' on the principle that little viewed programming would be squieeqed out, because nobody would buy it. That's why you pay $60/ month for 140 channels, or which you watch probably 40. YOu subsidize 100 channels of crap that nobody watches, tso companies like Time Warner and Charter can say, "see, we give you 140 channels for $60/ month". But, when good channels come along, they don't want to put them in the package, they put them in the premium package and charge more, so they can boost revenue. And when great channels come along, even more. Why, because they're scumbags. I believe in consumer driven markets beyond the basic cable bundle of 8-10 channels, which should be regulated and contain the major networks, or which NFL network should not be a bundle. Then, a la carte, and let the consumers decide what channels survive, and what doesn't. YOu would see a much smaller cable bill, and I wouldn't have to deal with 8 versions of QVC.

 

[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.

The NFL is holding nobody hostage. Time Warner and other Cable companies are. Football is the #1 sport, hands down. As contracts expire, the NFL network is going to roll more games to their network. It's a business decision. More games are going there. The 8 is a start. Count on that. I don't work there, but I understand business. Cable companies are opposed to 'a la carte pricing' on the principle that little viewed programming would be squieeqed out, because nobody would buy it. That's why you pay $60/ month for 140 channels, or which you watch probably 40. YOu subsidize 100 channels of crap that nobody watches, tso companies like Time Warner and Charter can say, "see, we give you 140 channels for $60/ month". But, when good channels come along, they don't want to put them in the package, they put them in the premium package and charge more, so they can boost revenue. And when great channels come along, even more. Why, because they're scumbags. I believe in consumer driven markets beyond the basic cable bundle of 8-10 channels, which should be regulated and contain the major networks, or which NFL network should not be a bundle. Then, a la carte, and let the consumers decide what channels survive, and what doesn't.

YOu would see a much smaller cable bill, and I wouldn't have to deal with 8 versions of QVC.

Read this and get back to me.

 

[Bri]

if you google IPTV you'll see cable+satellite companies should feel threatenned by their hold on the market. Change is coming.

I know many have picked up VOIP/phone capability and offer internet so I don't think the cable companies will "die" but there's definitely something "blowin' in the wind."

 

[scott72]

if you google IPTV you'll see cable+satellite companies should feel threatenned by their hold on the market. Change is coming.I know many have picked up VOIP/phone capability and offer internet so I don't think the cable companies will "die" but there's definitely something "blowin' in the wind."

Well its about time something like this happens. I live in a small area and of course we only have one cable option. The price is outragious of course because we have no other choice unless we want to go dish. There should be more cable choices, which means good honest competition and better prices for the customers.

 

[JaxBill]

Just wanted to bump this thread since some TWC customers might enjoy the bolded tidbit:

Lamar Hunt remains in hospital

Chiefs owner is still fighting complications, but he hopes to be released soon.

By ELIZABETH MERRILL

The Kansas City Star

One week after he entered a Dallas hospital, Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt is still battling complications from a partially collapsed lung.

Hunt was still stuck in the hospital Wednesday and isn’t expected to attend Sunday’s game at Cleveland. Chiefs president/general manager Carl Peterson said people close to Hunt were trying to get the NFL Ticket installed on his TV so he wouldn’t miss another game as he did last week, when the Chiefs’ 19-10 victory over the Denver Broncos wasn’t on his hospital’s cable package.

“He’s doing better,” Peterson said Wednesday night. “But not good enough yet to have the doctors let him go home. He sounded better today and said he felt better. He’s having some ups and downs. Hopefully he will get released here in the next few days.”

Hunt, 74, has been battling prostate cancer since 1998. He’s missed three games this year because of hospital stays.

Peterson described Hunt’s current health struggles as a “combination of a number of things.”

“People can appreciate when you have as much treatment as he’s had that sometimes … it erodes your immune system,” he said. “He’s in good medical hands, but he’s not there yet to be excused and allowed to go home.”

I'm not sure the facts are straight though since NFLNetwork is on Directv. If regular Directv was installed, he'd get NFLN.

 

[yellowdog]

 

[NinerK]

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.

The NFL is holding nobody hostage. Time Warner and other Cable companies are. Football is the #1 sport, hands down. As contracts expire, the NFL network is going to roll more games to their network. It's a business decision. More games are going there. The 8 is a start. Count on that. I don't work there, but I understand business. Cable companies are opposed to 'a la carte pricing' on the principle that little viewed programming would be squieeqed out, because nobody would buy it. That's why you pay $60/ month for 140 channels, or which you watch probably 40. YOu subsidize 100 channels of crap that nobody watches, tso companies like Time Warner and Charter can say, "see, we give you 140 channels for $60/ month". But, when good channels come along, they don't want to put them in the package, they put them in the premium package and charge more, so they can boost revenue. And when great channels come along, even more. Why, because they're scumbags. I believe in consumer driven markets beyond the basic cable bundle of 8-10 channels, which should be regulated and contain the major networks, or which NFL network should not be a bundle. Then, a la carte, and let the consumers decide what channels survive, and what doesn't.

YOu would see a much smaller cable bill, and I wouldn't have to deal with 8 versions of QVC.

Read this and get back to me.

LOL @ Helyer pointing to the SEA/SF game as "a game that features two teams currently battling for 1st place in the NFC West".Maybe next year...I don't care if SF beat SEA........SEA>SF this year...

 

[GregR_2]

...

Read this and get back to me.

My favorite part of that article was:

"The NFL is trying to force cable companies to charge many consumers for programming they don't want," says David Cohen, a Comcast executive vice president, in a statement.

My first thought... yes, how dare the NFL try to force customers to be charged for programming they don't want. After all, that's the exclusive right of the cable companies!Don't have a pony in this race, but both of them are equally just looking out for their own max profit and not looking out for consumers, so they might as well stop trying to couch it that way. But that's how the PR game is played.

 

[The_Man]

Just wanted to bump this thread since some TWC customers might enjoy the bolded tidbit:

Lamar Hunt remains in hospital

Chiefs owner is still fighting complications, but he hopes to be released soon.

By ELIZABETH MERRILL

The Kansas City Star

One week after he entered a Dallas hospital, Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt is still battling complications from a partially collapsed lung.

Hunt was still stuck in the hospital Wednesday and isn’t expected to attend Sunday’s game at Cleveland. Chiefs president/general manager Carl Peterson said people close to Hunt were trying to get the NFL Ticket installed on his TV so he wouldn’t miss another game as he did last week, when the Chiefs’ 19-10 victory over the Denver Broncos wasn’t on his hospital’s cable package.

“He’s doing better,” Peterson said Wednesday night. “But not good enough yet to have the doctors let him go home. He sounded better today and said he felt better. He’s having some ups and downs. Hopefully he will get released here in the next few days.”

Hunt, 74, has been battling prostate cancer since 1998. He’s missed three games this year because of hospital stays.

Peterson described Hunt’s current health struggles as a “combination of a number of things.”

“People can appreciate when you have as much treatment as he’s had that sometimes … it erodes your immune system,” he said. “He’s in good medical hands, but he’s not there yet to be excused and allowed to go home.”

I'm not sure the facts are straight though since NFLNetwork is on Directv. If regular Directv was installed, he'd get NFLN.

Sounds like he's stuck in a Dallas hospital for this weekend's game. I'm pretty sure Sunday Ticket will be the only way to see the KC-Cleveland game in Dallas (or anywhere else in the country outside of Ohio and western Missouri).

 

[Bevo]

Next Wednesday I am getting Direct TV installed. Next Thursday I am calling Time Warner and telling them they can kiss my ###.

 

[The_Man]

You might want to call them before Thursday. According to Comcast, when I called to cancel after getting DirecTV, they said I'd continue to be charged until they could come and disconnect my cable.

Do companies really think making their customers hate their guts is a good way to do business?

 

[mozzy84]

Next Wednesday I am getting Direct TV installed. Next Thursday I am calling Time Warner and telling them they can kiss my ###.

I did this before the season started, it was fun, I dumped my cable internet and got dsl also. Real nice feeling and the dish is way better imo...

 

[mozzy84]

You might want to call them before Thursday. According to Comcast, when I called to cancel after getting DirecTV, they said I'd continue to be charged until they could come and disconnect my cable.Do companies really think making their customers hate their guts is a good way to do business?

yep they pulled the same crap with me, different company same crap...

 

[ConstruxBoy]

...

Read this and get back to me.

My favorite part of that article was:

"The NFL is trying to force cable companies to charge many consumers for programming they don't want," says David Cohen, a Comcast executive vice president, in a statement.

My first thought... yes, how dare the NFL try to force customers to be charged for programming they don't want. After all, that's the exclusive right of the cable companies!Don't have a pony in this race, but both of them are equally just looking out for their own max profit and not looking out for consumers, so they might as well stop trying to couch it that way. But that's how the PR game is played.

Oh sure. But let's be honest: The main perception and the majority of the posts about the topic on this board are that the cable companies are the hunter and the NFL is Bambi. Just trying to point out both sides.

 

[Bevo]

You might want to call them before Thursday. According to Comcast, when I called to cancel after getting DirecTV, they said I'd continue to be charged until they could come and disconnect my cable.Do companies really think making their customers hate their guts is a good way to do business?

Oh well, that will just drive the stake in a little further and push any chance that I would ever go back to them out several more years. I really don't give a crap about TW at all anymore, my wish for them is that they go bankrupt and fall off the face of the planet and then things really start getting rough for them.

 

[Texican]

(I didn't read this whole thread)

Isn't there a way to see the game online??

 

[GregR_2]

You might want to call them before Thursday. According to Comcast, when I called to cancel after getting DirecTV, they said I'd continue to be charged until they could come and disconnect my cable.Do companies really think making their customers hate their guts is a good way to do business?

What does your contract say about your right to terminate? Does it say anywhere they have the right to charge you until they choose to disconnect you?

 

[The Ref]

Just a point of order that may have already been covered, it's much more profitable for the NFL for TW to pay them .50 for every customer they have and make NFLN part of basic cable, then it would be to make the NFLN a premium cable network and charge people like us $4-8 a month. The money is in charging the masses a small amount, plus the NFLN can charge more for advertising this way.

The Red Sox did the same thing with NESN in greater Boston. Instead of getting $8-$10 per subscription they are getting .50 for every home on Comcast/TW/RCN. They came out WAY ahead on that deal.

This also is why the Mets could go out and spend so much money over the past few years? Didn't they also get a network on basic cable in NYC?

 

[dparker713]

Frankly, I dont need football on Thursdays too. The NFL needs to get over itself.

 

[Darylrose]

Frankly, I dont need football on Thursdays too. The NFL needs to get over itself.

Blasphemy!

 

[WisWolvrns]

Frankly, I dont need football on Thursdays too. The NFL needs to get over itself.

never liked Thursday games and never will. (except Thanksgiving day) that week 1 thursday game really screwed up draft nights too... over saturation...

 

[msommer]

So, now that congress is on the job everyone can see NFLN, right?

 

[Bri]

So, now that congress is on the job everyone can see NFLN, right?

This thread kinda got off the beaten path. Was there anything further On Congress discussing this?