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

[H.K.]

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.

I still don't get the anti-trust angle.1) Consumers who want to watch NFLN have choice to get DirectTV. NFLN is availabe to the public, plain and simple. Companies like Coke and Pepsi determine who manages their distribution channel, this is no different.

2) Also, are NFL games a "vitally needed resource, good or service" for the country? It's not like we are talking about electricity or communications where people need NFLN to live.

I'd love for congress to force NFLN be aired on TWC, but its perfectly understandable why each organization is trying take care of their respective best interests. However, I don't see how Congress really has a leg to stand on here to force an arrangement.

 

[JChap]

I'm glad I got ride of Time Warner and now have Verizon Fios which has the Nfl network

 

[Sidewinder16]

Not all of TWC's customers are NFL fans.

I'm pretty sure not all of TWC's customers are making purchases through home shopping channels, either.I'd be suprised if TWC isn't already forcing all their customers to pay for half a dozen, or more, of those.

 

[Andrew]

That conspiracy theory doesn't make quite as much sense when you realize that the Cowboys/Bucs game was supposed to be a good one before the season started.

 

[videoguy505]

I still don't get the anti-trust angle.1) Consumers who want to watch NFLN have choice to get DirectTV. NFLN is availabe to the public, plain and simple. Companies like Coke and Pepsi determine who manages their distribution channel, this is no different.

About 1 in 8 people CANNOT get DirecTV. Even if they wanted to. Some live on the north side of apartment buildings or condos, or have trees or mountains blocking their view of the Southern sky, or some other issue prevents the satellite signal form reaching their homes. For TENS of MILLIONS of people, the only way they can receive TV is over-the-air broadcasting, or by cable wire that runs to their homes.

 

[H.K.]

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.

This answered my question. Looks like it is anti-trust based on the bolded parts.

 

[GregR_2]

...

2) Also, are NFL games a "vitally needed resource, good or service" for the country? It's not like we are talking about electricity or communications where people need NFLN to live.

...

Do you really need to ask this on an FF board to know that the answer is going to be yes?

 

[GregR_2]

Remain calm....all is well .... Congress is on the case

This may be the first time in US history these words have been strung together like this.

 

[corpcow]

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.

Antitrust issues with regard to sports leagues are an interesting space. It's a thin line on what they can and can't do... and if the cable providers were not in a position to bid on the original contract, it could definitely be invalidated as a "restraint of trade".

 

[H.K.]

I still don't get the anti-trust angle.1) Consumers who want to watch NFLN have choice to get DirectTV. NFLN is availabe to the public, plain and simple. Companies like Coke and Pepsi determine who manages their distribution channel, this is no different.

About 1 in 8 people CANNOT get DirecTV. Even if they wanted to. Some live on the north side of apartment buildings or condos, or have trees or mountains blocking their view of the Southern sky, or some other issue prevents the satellite signal form reaching their homes. For TENS of MILLIONS of people, the only way they can receive TV is over-the-air broadcasting, or by cable wire that runs to their homes.

I just figured that out from your previous post. I did not know that Direct TV was not available throughout the country. Anyway, seems like Congress has an open and shut case regarding anti-trust. The key issue is timing. How long does the NFL have to make the games available to everyone? Sounds like they could provide the games on a different satellite provider or just on cable to the homes where Direct TV is not available and meet their legal requirements, right?

 

[jonessed]

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.

It's the NFLs product and apparently they feel better not giving it to TWC than lowering their price. They don't want their superior product bundled with a bunch of crap. You don't sell designer perfume in burlap sacks . Cable will never get Sunday Ticket, but TWC may get NFLN if they pony up the money. The ball is in their court. If the NFLN wants to sell their product on a per customer basis on a standalone platform then that's the way they want to sell their product. TWC can pay it or #### and take the customer losses. It's not like they are getting a different deal than all the other cable companies.My gut tells me they will come up with a deal, but I don't see why the NFL is the bad guy here.

 

[corpcow]

1) Consumers who want to watch NFLN have choice to get DirectTV. NFLN is availabe to the public, plain and simple. Companies like Coke and Pepsi determine who manages their distribution channel, this is no different.

It can also be argued that DirectTV is not necessarily available to everyone - there are limitations on when and where sat TV can be set up. (And for one, excludes just about all of Manhattan).

 

[corpcow]

I'm glad I got ride of Time Warner and now have Verizon Fios which has the Nfl network

I've been waiting, and waiting, for FIOS - even before I heard about the TV service. 30mbit down... and 2mbit up. Oooh.

 

[jonessed]

I still don't get the anti-trust angle.1) Consumers who want to watch NFLN have choice to get DirectTV. NFLN is availabe to the public, plain and simple. Companies like Coke and Pepsi determine who manages their distribution channel, this is no different.

About 1 in 8 people CANNOT get DirecTV. Even if they wanted to. Some live on the north side of apartment buildings or condos, or have trees or mountains blocking their view of the Southern sky, or some other issue prevents the satellite signal form reaching their homes. For TENS of MILLIONS of people, the only way they can receive TV is over-the-air broadcasting, or by cable wire that runs to their homes.

These people can watch football. They just can't watch ALL the games. And what about those that don't get cable? Is the NFL supposed to run everything in over-the-air broadcasting?

 

[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.

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.

True, but the way I understand it is that NFLN started that stand with NFLN. It had allowed other cable cos like Adelphia to have it. But, in my opinion, they probably realized that they wanted it on basic cable everywhere and when TWC said they wanted it in a package, NFLN made a stand.

 

[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.

It's the NFLs product and apparently they feel better not giving it to TWC than lowering their price. They don't want their superior product bundled with a bunch of crap. You don't sell designer perfume in burlap sacks . Cable will never get Sunday Ticket, but TWC may get NFLN if they pony up the money. The ball is in their court. If the NFLN wants to sell their product on a per customer basis on a standalone platform then that's the way they want to sell their product. TWC can pay it or #### and take the customer losses. It's not like they are getting a different deal than all the other cable companies.My gut tells me they will come up with a deal, but I don't see why the NFL is the bad guy here.

Actually I believe that they are making TWC sign a different deal than the other cable companies. That was the point of TWC's issue with it. IIRC, NFLN wants to charge TWC quite a bit more because TWC wants to put it on a package instead of on basic cable. Adelphia said that they'd put it on basic cable and all their subscribers paid for it via an increase. TWC is saying they want to put it on a package and NFLN is telling them they can't have it.

 

[GoFishTN]

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.

I'm sure they'll take care of this Thanksgiving issue in the same manner as they enforced the merger agreement.

 

[gump]

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.

What an ignorant theory by ESPN. In addition to what was mentioned earlier about the Buc/Cowboy game....Dallas is by far the best market for TV out of the 6 teams playing on T-day. Denver and KC are not top 10. It's not about the team's records.

 

[Bri]

True, but the way I understand it is that NFLN started that stand with NFLN. It had allowed other cable cos like Adelphia to have it. But, in my opinion, they probably realized that they wanted it on basic cable everywhere and when TWC said they wanted it in a package, NFLN made a stand.

Maybe. I would figure that they get everyone to have it, get their customers hooked THEN insist on parameters like that.

 

[jonessed]

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.

It's the NFLs product and apparently they feel better not giving it to TWC than lowering their price. They don't want their superior product bundled with a bunch of crap. You don't sell designer perfume in burlap sacks . Cable will never get Sunday Ticket, but TWC may get NFLN if they pony up the money. The ball is in their court. If the NFLN wants to sell their product on a per customer basis on a standalone platform then that's the way they want to sell their product. TWC can pay it or #### and take the customer losses. It's not like they are getting a different deal than all the other cable companies.My gut tells me they will come up with a deal, but I don't see why the NFL is the bad guy here.

Actually I believe that they are making TWC sign a different deal than the other cable companies. That was the point of TWC's issue with it. IIRC, NFLN wants to charge TWC quite a bit more because TWC wants to put it on a package instead of on basic cable. Adelphia said that they'd put it on basic cable and all their subscribers paid for it via an increase. TWC is saying they want to put it on a package and NFLN is telling them they can't have it.

That makes more sense then, but I can still understand why the NFL has a problem. Packaging it means it it generates fewer customers, which means it's worth less to the NFL, and they think TWC should compensate for that choice (since TWC will be making more money by packaging it). I see this as being worked out though. The DirectTV thing would be messy. DirectTV paid billions for the rights and sold to customers telling them they had exclusive rights. The thing would be in lawsuit limbo for ages with customers suing DirectTV and DirectTV suing the NFL.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

True, but the way I understand it is that NFLN started that stand with NFLN. It had allowed other cable cos like Adelphia to have it. But, in my opinion, they probably realized that they wanted it on basic cable everywhere and when TWC said they wanted it in a package, NFLN made a stand.

Maybe. I would figure that they get everyone to have it, get their customers hooked THEN insist on parameters like that.

You would have thought so. That's what ESPN had to do early on in their history. And they cover all sports. All the single sports channels on my TWC (Golf, NBATV, Fuel, Speed) are on the sports package. Makes sense that's where the NFLN would start.

 

[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.

It's the NFLs product and apparently they feel better not giving it to TWC than lowering their price. They don't want their superior product bundled with a bunch of crap. You don't sell designer perfume in burlap sacks . Cable will never get Sunday Ticket, but TWC may get NFLN if they pony up the money. The ball is in their court. If the NFLN wants to sell their product on a per customer basis on a standalone platform then that's the way they want to sell their product. TWC can pay it or #### and take the customer losses. It's not like they are getting a different deal than all the other cable companies.My gut tells me they will come up with a deal, but I don't see why the NFL is the bad guy here.

Actually I believe that they are making TWC sign a different deal than the other cable companies. That was the point of TWC's issue with it. IIRC, NFLN wants to charge TWC quite a bit more because TWC wants to put it on a package instead of on basic cable. Adelphia said that they'd put it on basic cable and all their subscribers paid for it via an increase. TWC is saying they want to put it on a package and NFLN is telling them they can't have it.

That makes more sense then, but I can still understand why the NFL has a problem. Packaging it means it it generates fewer customers, which means it's worth less to the NFL, and they think TWC should compensate for that choice (since TWC will be making more money by packaging it). I see this as being worked out though. The DirectTV thing would be messy. DirectTV paid billions for the rights and sold to customers telling them they had exclusive rights. The thing would be in lawsuit limbo for ages with customers suing DirectTV and DirectTV suing the NFL.

Ehh..I disagree a bit. Let's say that NFLN went to the cable companies and said "You can have NFLN for $5 million" Adelphia says fine and puts it on basic cable and spreads the cost out among every subscriber. TWC says OK, but we're going to put it on our sports package. Then NFLN says, Well, we won't get as many viewers on a sports package so we're charging you $10 million. I think in that instance, TWC is justified in telling the NFLN to go take a hike.

 

[JBTV]

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.

What an ignorant theory by ESPN. In addition to what was mentioned earlier about the Buc/Cowboy game....Dallas is by far the best market for TV out of the 6 teams playing on T-day. Denver and KC are not top 10. It's not about the team's records.

Not to mention Miami was supposed to be a possible Super Bowl contender playing Detroit who always hosts a Thanksgiving game. I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but this one is pretty dumb, really.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

This answered my question. Looks like it is anti-trust based on the bolded parts.

A couple points that don't add up though. You say the NFL will never be foolish enough to blow that but direct TV paid 3.5 billion and if you break that up they would get their money back (or they would have legal recourse to do so). The difference is still 500 mil but it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.Also a point nobody has made is when a game is blacked out in the home market the NFL is not making the game available to everyone so that is as much an issue as the Thanksgiving game.

 

[jonessed]

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.

It's the NFLs product and apparently they feel better not giving it to TWC than lowering their price. They don't want their superior product bundled with a bunch of crap. You don't sell designer perfume in burlap sacks . Cable will never get Sunday Ticket, but TWC may get NFLN if they pony up the money. The ball is in their court. If the NFLN wants to sell their product on a per customer basis on a standalone platform then that's the way they want to sell their product. TWC can pay it or #### and take the customer losses. It's not like they are getting a different deal than all the other cable companies.My gut tells me they will come up with a deal, but I don't see why the NFL is the bad guy here.

Actually I believe that they are making TWC sign a different deal than the other cable companies. That was the point of TWC's issue with it. IIRC, NFLN wants to charge TWC quite a bit more because TWC wants to put it on a package instead of on basic cable. Adelphia said that they'd put it on basic cable and all their subscribers paid for it via an increase. TWC is saying they want to put it on a package and NFLN is telling them they can't have it.

That makes more sense then, but I can still understand why the NFL has a problem. Packaging it means it it generates fewer customers, which means it's worth less to the NFL, and they think TWC should compensate for that choice (since TWC will be making more money by packaging it). I see this as being worked out though. The DirectTV thing would be messy. DirectTV paid billions for the rights and sold to customers telling them they had exclusive rights. The thing would be in lawsuit limbo for ages with customers suing DirectTV and DirectTV suing the NFL.

Ehh..I disagree a bit. Let's say that NFLN went to the cable companies and said "You can have NFLN for $5 million" Adelphia says fine and puts it on basic cable and spreads the cost out among every subscriber. TWC says OK, but we're going to put it on our sports package. Then NFLN says, Well, we won't get as many viewers on a sports package so we're charging you $10 million. I think in that instance, TWC is justified in telling the NFLN to go take a hike.

Isn't that exactly what's happening? I guess we just disagree.

 

[gildawg]

If I remember correctly, NFLN doesn't get a lump sums but a certain amount per subscriber. I think it was something like $0.90 per subscriber. I was reading a thing that TWC sent me, even though I'm one of the few on NFLN's side. I have DTV, and have many friends and family with Dish and we all pay less to get more stations than cable. And we all have NFLN. NFL wants its station on basic no matter what, and TWC wants to put it on a package because it is a Niche station. Well, unfortunately, 90% of cable station are niche and should be put into packages. TWC keeps saying it has to raise rates to put it on basic, but I had DTV before NFLN existed and my rates haven't gone up.

Here's what I think the problem is, TWC wasn't goingot get NFLN because it was a new station and I don't think they thought it would be a success, I mean a station based on one sports league can't succeed right? NFLN set their price at say $0.40 a subscriber. So everybody their brother is jumping on board, except TWC and maybe a few others. Then NFLN gets primetime games, and more than doubles their rates. Well, the other companies are grandfathered in their contracts and will have to pay the new price when those contracts are up, and most will because of the popularity of the station and games. TWC, sat on the fence too long and now have to pay for it. So they want to put it in a package to get their money back that they lost for the last two years. I love the station, I watch it more than ESPN, but I would not pay extra to get this one station that I want grouped with 5 or 6 that I don't want.

I'll pay $35-40 for the 40 or 50 stations that I do watch out of 120 available, but I won't pay $9.99 for a package that has one station I want and 7 that I don't.

I'm completely on the side of the NFLN on this one. TWC, charges too much for cable already and have more subscribers that Dish or DTV, but somehow need to raise their prices while the sat providers don't? Am I missing something?

 

[Bri]

Am I missing something?

Jets stadium fight.

 

[SteveUK]

From where I am sitting DirecTV sucks.

Not only would I pay more per month to get the channels I already receive with Bright House, but they cannot even supply me with a HD DVR. Apparently, I can get on the waiting list.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

If I remember correctly, NFLN doesn't get a lump sums but a certain amount per subscriber. I think it was something like $0.90 per subscriber. I was reading a thing that TWC sent me, even though I'm one of the few on NFLN's side. I have DTV, and have many friends and family with Dish and we all pay less to get more stations than cable. And we all have NFLN. NFL wants its station on basic no matter what, and TWC wants to put it on a package because it is a Niche station. Well, unfortunately, 90% of cable station are niche and should be put into packages. TWC keeps saying it has to raise rates to put it on basic, but I had DTV before NFLN existed and my rates haven't gone up.Here's what I think the problem is, TWC wasn't goingot get NFLN because it was a new station and I don't think they thought it would be a success, I mean a station based on one sports league can't succeed right? NFLN set their price at say $0.40 a subscriber. So everybody their brother is jumping on board, except TWC and maybe a few others. Then NFLN gets primetime games, and more than doubles their rates. Well, the other companies are grandfathered in their contracts and will have to pay the new price when those contracts are up, and most will because of the popularity of the station and games. TWC, sat on the fence too long and now have to pay for it. So they want to put it in a package to get their money back that they lost for the last two years. I love the station, I watch it more than ESPN, but I would not pay extra to get this one station that I want grouped with 5 or 6 that I don't want.I'll pay $35-40 for the 40 or 50 stations that I do watch out of 120 available, but I won't pay $9.99 for a package that has one station I want and 7 that I don't.I'm completely on the side of the NFLN on this one. TWC, charges too much for cable already and have more subscribers that Dish or DTV, but somehow need to raise their prices while the sat providers don't? Am I missing something?

If you're unhappy with their service, you should leave. Pretty simple really. I like the sports tier and already pay for it, so I have no problem with them adding it there. I think that's where it should go, to be honest. And enough about all the shopping channels and that crap being on basic. Alot of them probably should be grouped into separate tiers. But it's silly to be upset with TWC for finally doing what should have been done all along, which is to put all niche channels into tiers. They (nor almost any cable company) didn't do that for quite awhile, so now that they are trying to get it right (NBATV is pretty new and that went into a tier), they're the bad guy? Doesn't seem right. I know that everyone wants all the cable services to have their channels ala carte, so you can pick and choose what you want. But that is not a reality right now. The best hypothetical example I can think of would be if someone came up with the Oprah Channel. All Oprah, all the time. Now there are a whole bunch of people (read:women) who would love that channel and think that Oprah is the most popular "entertainer" on earth and therefore the channel should be in basic cable. But it's a niche channel and should go into a tier. I would be upset having to pay $1 - $2 more a month for it. Make sense?

 

[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.

It's the NFLs product and apparently they feel better not giving it to TWC than lowering their price. They don't want their superior product bundled with a bunch of crap. You don't sell designer perfume in burlap sacks . Cable will never get Sunday Ticket, but TWC may get NFLN if they pony up the money. The ball is in their court. If the NFLN wants to sell their product on a per customer basis on a standalone platform then that's the way they want to sell their product. TWC can pay it or #### and take the customer losses. It's not like they are getting a different deal than all the other cable companies.My gut tells me they will come up with a deal, but I don't see why the NFL is the bad guy here.

Actually I believe that they are making TWC sign a different deal than the other cable companies. That was the point of TWC's issue with it. IIRC, NFLN wants to charge TWC quite a bit more because TWC wants to put it on a package instead of on basic cable. Adelphia said that they'd put it on basic cable and all their subscribers paid for it via an increase. TWC is saying they want to put it on a package and NFLN is telling them they can't have it.

That makes more sense then, but I can still understand why the NFL has a problem. Packaging it means it it generates fewer customers, which means it's worth less to the NFL, and they think TWC should compensate for that choice (since TWC will be making more money by packaging it). I see this as being worked out though. The DirectTV thing would be messy. DirectTV paid billions for the rights and sold to customers telling them they had exclusive rights. The thing would be in lawsuit limbo for ages with customers suing DirectTV and DirectTV suing the NFL.

Ehh..I disagree a bit. Let's say that NFLN went to the cable companies and said "You can have NFLN for $5 million" Adelphia says fine and puts it on basic cable and spreads the cost out among every subscriber. TWC says OK, but we're going to put it on our sports package. Then NFLN says, Well, we won't get as many viewers on a sports package so we're charging you $10 million. I think in that instance, TWC is justified in telling the NFLN to go take a hike.

Isn't that exactly what's happening? I guess we just disagree.

Yeah. I'm thinking like a Time Warner shareholder, not an NFL fan. Do I want my company to pay double the price (assuming my example above) versus worrying about losing some subscribers to Direct TV? How will that affect the bottom line and my share price and my dividends? Not so sure that caving to the NFLN would be in their best interest.

 

[H.K.]

Does anyone know how long it would take for a cable company make NFLN available?

Assume Congress steps in and a deal is worked out/forced and TWC can put NFLN on. How much technical stuff would need to happen and how fast for it to broadcast?

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

Does anyone know how long it would take for a cable company make NFLN available? Assume Congress steps in and a deal is worked out/forced and TWC can put NFLN on. How much technical stuff would need to happen and how fast for it to broadcast?

Take about the time to flip a switch to allow the feed to go through. Let me put it this way, lets say last night the NFLN and TWC made friends and worked out some 5 year deal. They could have the station on right now.

 

[H.K.]

Does anyone know how long it would take for a cable company make NFLN available? Assume Congress steps in and a deal is worked out/forced and TWC can put NFLN on. How much technical stuff would need to happen and how fast for it to broadcast?

Take about the time to flip a switch to allow the feed to go through. Let me put it this way, lets say last night the NFLN and TWC made friends and worked out some 5 year deal. They could have the station on right now.

Thanks. So all we really need are bunch of congressman wanting NFLN on TWC in time for Thanksgiving, right?

 

[Sammy3469]

If I remember correctly, NFLN doesn't get a lump sums but a certain amount per subscriber. I think it was something like $0.90 per subscriber. I was reading a thing that TWC sent me, even though I'm one of the few on NFLN's side. I have DTV, and have many friends and family with Dish and we all pay less to get more stations than cable. And we all have NFLN. NFL wants its station on basic no matter what, and TWC wants to put it on a package because it is a Niche station. Well, unfortunately, 90% of cable station are niche and should be put into packages. TWC keeps saying it has to raise rates to put it on basic, but I had DTV before NFLN existed and my rates haven't gone up.Here's what I think the problem is, TWC wasn't goingot get NFLN because it was a new station and I don't think they thought it would be a success, I mean a station based on one sports league can't succeed right? NFLN set their price at say $0.40 a subscriber. So everybody their brother is jumping on board, except TWC and maybe a few others. Then NFLN gets primetime games, and more than doubles their rates. Well, the other companies are grandfathered in their contracts and will have to pay the new price when those contracts are up, and most will because of the popularity of the station and games. TWC, sat on the fence too long and now have to pay for it. So they want to put it in a package to get their money back that they lost for the last two years. I love the station, I watch it more than ESPN, but I would not pay extra to get this one station that I want grouped with 5 or 6 that I don't want.I'll pay $35-40 for the 40 or 50 stations that I do watch out of 120 available, but I won't pay $9.99 for a package that has one station I want and 7 that I don't.I'm completely on the side of the NFLN on this one. TWC, charges too much for cable already and have more subscribers that Dish or DTV, but somehow need to raise their prices while the sat providers don't? Am I missing something?

If you're unhappy with their service, you should leave. Pretty simple really. I like the sports tier and already pay for it, so I have no problem with them adding it there. I think that's where it should go, to be honest. And enough about all the shopping channels and that crap being on basic. Alot of them probably should be grouped into separate tiers. But it's silly to be upset with TWC for finally doing what should have been done all along, which is to put all niche channels into tiers. They (nor almost any cable company) didn't do that for quite awhile, so now that they are trying to get it right (NBATV is pretty new and that went into a tier), they're the bad guy? Doesn't seem right. I know that everyone wants all the cable services to have their channels ala carte, so you can pick and choose what you want. But that is not a reality right now. The best hypothetical example I can think of would be if someone came up with the Oprah Channel. All Oprah, all the time. Now there are a whole bunch of people (read:women) who would love that channel and think that Oprah is the most popular "entertainer" on earth and therefore the channel should be in basic cable. But it's a niche channel and should go into a tier. I would be upset having to pay $1 - $2 more a month for it. Make sense?

The big problem is that many people in NYC can't leave. No southern sky. No alternative service since many buildings aren't built for it. We basically have to take whatever TWC says.

 

[videoguy505]

If I remember correctly, NFLN doesn't get a lump sums but a certain amount per subscriber. I think it was something like $0.90 per subscriber. I was reading a thing that TWC sent me, even though I'm one of the few on NFLN's side. I have DTV, and have many friends and family with Dish and we all pay less to get more stations than cable. And we all have NFLN. NFL wants its station on basic no matter what, and TWC wants to put it on a package because it is a Niche station. Well, unfortunately, 90% of cable station are niche and should be put into packages. TWC keeps saying it has to raise rates to put it on basic, but I had DTV before NFLN existed and my rates haven't gone up.Here's what I think the problem is, TWC wasn't goingot get NFLN because it was a new station and I don't think they thought it would be a success, I mean a station based on one sports league can't succeed right? NFLN set their price at say $0.40 a subscriber. So everybody their brother is jumping on board, except TWC and maybe a few others. Then NFLN gets primetime games, and more than doubles their rates. Well, the other companies are grandfathered in their contracts and will have to pay the new price when those contracts are up, and most will because of the popularity of the station and games. TWC, sat on the fence too long and now have to pay for it. So they want to put it in a package to get their money back that they lost for the last two years. I love the station, I watch it more than ESPN, but I would not pay extra to get this one station that I want grouped with 5 or 6 that I don't want.I'll pay $35-40 for the 40 or 50 stations that I do watch out of 120 available, but I won't pay $9.99 for a package that has one station I want and 7 that I don't.I'm completely on the side of the NFLN on this one. TWC, charges too much for cable already and have more subscribers that Dish or DTV, but somehow need to raise their prices while the sat providers don't? Am I missing something?

If you're unhappy with their service, you should leave. Pretty simple really. I like the sports tier and already pay for it, so I have no problem with them adding it there. I think that's where it should go, to be honest. And enough about all the shopping channels and that crap being on basic. Alot of them probably should be grouped into separate tiers. But it's silly to be upset with TWC for finally doing what should have been done all along, which is to put all niche channels into tiers. They (nor almost any cable company) didn't do that for quite awhile, so now that they are trying to get it right (NBATV is pretty new and that went into a tier), they're the bad guy? Doesn't seem right. I know that everyone wants all the cable services to have their channels ala carte, so you can pick and choose what you want. But that is not a reality right now. The best hypothetical example I can think of would be if someone came up with the Oprah Channel. All Oprah, all the time. Now there are a whole bunch of people (read:women) who would love that channel and think that Oprah is the most popular "entertainer" on earth and therefore the channel should be in basic cable. But it's a niche channel and should go into a tier. I would be upset having to pay $1 - $2 more a month for it. Make sense?

The big problem is that many people in NYC can't leave. No southern sky. No alternative service since many buildings aren't built for it. We basically have to take whatever TWC says.

Right. Cable TV isn't a competetive business in the sense that each area has an exclusivity agreement with the cable company. You can't switch from TWC to Comcast in protest, and tens of millions of people in this country can't switch to DirecTV. Cable companies are a semi-utility in the sense that they use publicly owned wiring and city infrastructure to deliver, much like the power company and the gas company. Just like you can't switch to a different power company, many can't switch to a different TV provider. They have always been treated like a semi-utility.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

If I remember correctly, NFLN doesn't get a lump sums but a certain amount per subscriber. I think it was something like $0.90 per subscriber. I was reading a thing that TWC sent me, even though I'm one of the few on NFLN's side. I have DTV, and have many friends and family with Dish and we all pay less to get more stations than cable. And we all have NFLN. NFL wants its station on basic no matter what, and TWC wants to put it on a package because it is a Niche station. Well, unfortunately, 90% of cable station are niche and should be put into packages. TWC keeps saying it has to raise rates to put it on basic, but I had DTV before NFLN existed and my rates haven't gone up.Here's what I think the problem is, TWC wasn't goingot get NFLN because it was a new station and I don't think they thought it would be a success, I mean a station based on one sports league can't succeed right? NFLN set their price at say $0.40 a subscriber. So everybody their brother is jumping on board, except TWC and maybe a few others. Then NFLN gets primetime games, and more than doubles their rates. Well, the other companies are grandfathered in their contracts and will have to pay the new price when those contracts are up, and most will because of the popularity of the station and games. TWC, sat on the fence too long and now have to pay for it. So they want to put it in a package to get their money back that they lost for the last two years. I love the station, I watch it more than ESPN, but I would not pay extra to get this one station that I want grouped with 5 or 6 that I don't want.I'll pay $35-40 for the 40 or 50 stations that I do watch out of 120 available, but I won't pay $9.99 for a package that has one station I want and 7 that I don't.I'm completely on the side of the NFLN on this one. TWC, charges too much for cable already and have more subscribers that Dish or DTV, but somehow need to raise their prices while the sat providers don't? Am I missing something?

If you're unhappy with their service, you should leave. Pretty simple really. I like the sports tier and already pay for it, so I have no problem with them adding it there. I think that's where it should go, to be honest. And enough about all the shopping channels and that crap being on basic. Alot of them probably should be grouped into separate tiers. But it's silly to be upset with TWC for finally doing what should have been done all along, which is to put all niche channels into tiers. They (nor almost any cable company) didn't do that for quite awhile, so now that they are trying to get it right (NBATV is pretty new and that went into a tier), they're the bad guy? Doesn't seem right. I know that everyone wants all the cable services to have their channels ala carte, so you can pick and choose what you want. But that is not a reality right now. The best hypothetical example I can think of would be if someone came up with the Oprah Channel. All Oprah, all the time. Now there are a whole bunch of people (read:women) who would love that channel and think that Oprah is the most popular "entertainer" on earth and therefore the channel should be in basic cable. But it's a niche channel and should go into a tier. I would be upset having to pay $1 - $2 more a month for it. Make sense?

The big problem is that many people in NYC can't leave. No southern sky. No alternative service since many buildings aren't built for it. We basically have to take whatever TWC says.

Correct and that's why TWC has some bargaining power. They "own" NYC and most NYC people can't turn to DTV because of the skyline. The NFLN certainly wants to be shown in the biggest market in the country. So I think that TWC is being smart by trying to get NFLN to be reasonable about this and use the NYC market as leverage. Sucks for those living there, but it's really just a good business decision and negotiating tactic. Now, if the negotiations are made public and TWC is really trying to rip the NFLN off, then I'll say boo to them. But I doubt very much that the "rip off" is going that way.

 

[Bri]

Right. Cable TV isn't a competetive business in the sense that each area has an exclusivity agreement with the cable company. You can't switch from TWC to Comcast in protest, and tens of millions of people in this country can't switch to DirecTV. Cable companies are a semi-utility in the sense that they use publicly owned wiring and city infrastructure to deliver, much like the power company and the gas company. Just like you can't switch to a different power company, many can't switch to a different TV provider. They have always been treated like a semi-utility.

The world's changing don't worry. I wouldn't be surprised if phone companies and new companies offer cable TV within 5 years.

 

[Sammy3469]

If I remember correctly, NFLN doesn't get a lump sums but a certain amount per subscriber. I think it was something like $0.90 per subscriber. I was reading a thing that TWC sent me, even though I'm one of the few on NFLN's side. I have DTV, and have many friends and family with Dish and we all pay less to get more stations than cable. And we all have NFLN. NFL wants its station on basic no matter what, and TWC wants to put it on a package because it is a Niche station. Well, unfortunately, 90% of cable station are niche and should be put into packages. TWC keeps saying it has to raise rates to put it on basic, but I had DTV before NFLN existed and my rates haven't gone up.Here's what I think the problem is, TWC wasn't goingot get NFLN because it was a new station and I don't think they thought it would be a success, I mean a station based on one sports league can't succeed right? NFLN set their price at say $0.40 a subscriber. So everybody their brother is jumping on board, except TWC and maybe a few others. Then NFLN gets primetime games, and more than doubles their rates. Well, the other companies are grandfathered in their contracts and will have to pay the new price when those contracts are up, and most will because of the popularity of the station and games. TWC, sat on the fence too long and now have to pay for it. So they want to put it in a package to get their money back that they lost for the last two years. I love the station, I watch it more than ESPN, but I would not pay extra to get this one station that I want grouped with 5 or 6 that I don't want.I'll pay $35-40 for the 40 or 50 stations that I do watch out of 120 available, but I won't pay $9.99 for a package that has one station I want and 7 that I don't.I'm completely on the side of the NFLN on this one. TWC, charges too much for cable already and have more subscribers that Dish or DTV, but somehow need to raise their prices while the sat providers don't? Am I missing something?

If you're unhappy with their service, you should leave. Pretty simple really. I like the sports tier and already pay for it, so I have no problem with them adding it there. I think that's where it should go, to be honest. And enough about all the shopping channels and that crap being on basic. Alot of them probably should be grouped into separate tiers. But it's silly to be upset with TWC for finally doing what should have been done all along, which is to put all niche channels into tiers. They (nor almost any cable company) didn't do that for quite awhile, so now that they are trying to get it right (NBATV is pretty new and that went into a tier), they're the bad guy? Doesn't seem right. I know that everyone wants all the cable services to have their channels ala carte, so you can pick and choose what you want. But that is not a reality right now. The best hypothetical example I can think of would be if someone came up with the Oprah Channel. All Oprah, all the time. Now there are a whole bunch of people (read:women) who would love that channel and think that Oprah is the most popular "entertainer" on earth and therefore the channel should be in basic cable. But it's a niche channel and should go into a tier. I would be upset having to pay $1 - $2 more a month for it. Make sense?

The big problem is that many people in NYC can't leave. No southern sky. No alternative service since many buildings aren't built for it. We basically have to take whatever TWC says.

Correct and that's why TWC has some bargaining power. They "own" NYC and most NYC people can't turn to DTV because of the skyline. The NFLN certainly wants to be shown in the biggest market in the country. So I think that TWC is being smart by trying to get NFLN to be reasonable about this and use the NYC market as leverage. Sucks for those living there, but it's really just a good business decision and negotiating tactic. Now, if the negotiations are made public and TWC is really trying to rip the NFLN off, then I'll say boo to them. But I doubt very much that the "rip off" is going that way.

FWIW, I imagine this will get solved the same way as the YES/TWC problems a couple of years ago when TWC allowed subsribers to opt-out of YES (which I think is $1 a month), but put it on the general service. If memory serves, this happened after the first week of the season. So I could see a scenario where non-NFL diehards sit down after turkey on Thursday expecting to see the game and then make a stink when it's not on.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

If I remember correctly, NFLN doesn't get a lump sums but a certain amount per subscriber. I think it was something like $0.90 per subscriber. I was reading a thing that TWC sent me, even though I'm one of the few on NFLN's side. I have DTV, and have many friends and family with Dish and we all pay less to get more stations than cable. And we all have NFLN. NFL wants its station on basic no matter what, and TWC wants to put it on a package because it is a Niche station. Well, unfortunately, 90% of cable station are niche and should be put into packages. TWC keeps saying it has to raise rates to put it on basic, but I had DTV before NFLN existed and my rates haven't gone up.Here's what I think the problem is, TWC wasn't goingot get NFLN because it was a new station and I don't think they thought it would be a success, I mean a station based on one sports league can't succeed right? NFLN set their price at say $0.40 a subscriber. So everybody their brother is jumping on board, except TWC and maybe a few others. Then NFLN gets primetime games, and more than doubles their rates. Well, the other companies are grandfathered in their contracts and will have to pay the new price when those contracts are up, and most will because of the popularity of the station and games. TWC, sat on the fence too long and now have to pay for it. So they want to put it in a package to get their money back that they lost for the last two years. I love the station, I watch it more than ESPN, but I would not pay extra to get this one station that I want grouped with 5 or 6 that I don't want.I'll pay $35-40 for the 40 or 50 stations that I do watch out of 120 available, but I won't pay $9.99 for a package that has one station I want and 7 that I don't.I'm completely on the side of the NFLN on this one. TWC, charges too much for cable already and have more subscribers that Dish or DTV, but somehow need to raise their prices while the sat providers don't? Am I missing something?

If you're unhappy with their service, you should leave. Pretty simple really. I like the sports tier and already pay for it, so I have no problem with them adding it there. I think that's where it should go, to be honest. And enough about all the shopping channels and that crap being on basic. Alot of them probably should be grouped into separate tiers. But it's silly to be upset with TWC for finally doing what should have been done all along, which is to put all niche channels into tiers. They (nor almost any cable company) didn't do that for quite awhile, so now that they are trying to get it right (NBATV is pretty new and that went into a tier), they're the bad guy? Doesn't seem right. I know that everyone wants all the cable services to have their channels ala carte, so you can pick and choose what you want. But that is not a reality right now. The best hypothetical example I can think of would be if someone came up with the Oprah Channel. All Oprah, all the time. Now there are a whole bunch of people (read:women) who would love that channel and think that Oprah is the most popular "entertainer" on earth and therefore the channel should be in basic cable. But it's a niche channel and should go into a tier. I would be upset having to pay $1 - $2 more a month for it. Make sense?

The big problem is that many people in NYC can't leave. No southern sky. No alternative service since many buildings aren't built for it. We basically have to take whatever TWC says.

Correct and that's why TWC has some bargaining power. They "own" NYC and most NYC people can't turn to DTV because of the skyline. The NFLN certainly wants to be shown in the biggest market in the country. So I think that TWC is being smart by trying to get NFLN to be reasonable about this and use the NYC market as leverage. Sucks for those living there, but it's really just a good business decision and negotiating tactic. Now, if the negotiations are made public and TWC is really trying to rip the NFLN off, then I'll say boo to them. But I doubt very much that the "rip off" is going that way.

FWIW, I imagine this will get solved the same way as the YES/TWC problems a couple of years ago when TWC allowed subsribers to opt-out of YES (which I think is $1 a month), but put it on the general service. If memory serves, this happened after the first week of the season. So I could see a scenario where non-NFL diehards sit down after turkey on Thursday expecting to see the game and then make a stink when it's not on.

True and that's probably the best solution for both sides because you know that a bunch of people who get it won't think to opt out whether they watch it or not. But by giving them the choice, you please the diehards that don't want it.

 

[Bri]

I hope TWC doesn't underestimate how much a part of American life football on turkey day is. There's gonna be some angry people and their wives and cousins will all hear about it too.

 

[brettdj]

The big problem is that many people in NYC can't leave. No southern sky. No alternative service since many buildings aren't built for it. We basically have to take whatever TWC says.

They could try to get the building owner to install a dish on the roof. Or get another job outside the city. There are also millions of people who can not get cable.Reebok has an exclusive contract for NFL gear. So the NFL is always dealing in exclusivity. DTV will probably have Sunday Ticket forever(at least until it cost too much)

 

[airraid81]

No conspiracy here. It's been a long-standing tradition to put Dallas and Detroit games on Thanksgiving. The Dallas game was supposed to be good this year because Tampa was supposed to be good. The Detroit game always sucks since the Lions always suck. Obviously the NFL Chanel is going to take a good game; that's business. The only conspiracy is that Time Warner didn't let it's fans see the NFL Chanel's 53 preseason games and 8 live games and the run to the playoffs not to mention 24/7 live NFL Network programing.

 

[yellowdog]

Any new hope in this situation?

 

[Bri]

The big problem is that many people in NYC can't leave. No southern sky. No alternative service since many buildings aren't built for it. We basically have to take whatever TWC says.

They could try to get the building owner to install a dish on the roof. Or get another job outside the city.

that assumes their building is the tallest in the line of sight and that NFLN is more important than their job

 

[H.K.]

Story on Yahoo today

TWC unwilling to bump its cost per subscriber $.70/month to air NFLN....I feel sick.

Cable operators balking at NFL Network By SETH SUTEL, AP Business Writer

Tue Nov 21, 7:27 PM ET

NEW YORK - On Thanksgiving, the NFL will air the first of eight live pro football games on its own network. But it won't be available to many viewers across the country because the league hasn't reached carriage agreements with several major cable operators.

The eight games — beginning with Thursday's matchup of the Denver Broncos and the Kansas City Chiefs — will be available on local broadcasters, satellite TV and a number of other cable systems that do carry the NFL Network. But that totals only about 40 million of the nation's 111.4 million households with TVs.

Most notable among the cable companies that haven't reached deals with the National Football League are No. 2 operator Time Warner Cable, which is a unit of the media conglomerate Time Warner Inc.; Cablevision Systems Corp., a New York-area provider; and Charter Communications Inc. Time Warner, for its part, says it's highly unlikely a deal will be reached in time for the first game.

Comcast Corp., the largest cable company in the country, has carried the network for two years, but as part of a digital package ordered by only about 7 million out of its 24 million subscribers. Time Warner says it's balking at a demand from NFL that the network be carried on the most widely available basic service lineup.

The issue is cost. Spokesman Mark Harrad says Time Warner would have to pay $140 million a year to provide the channel to all 13.5 million of its subscribers in 33 states, placing it in the top five most expensive cable networks. He said the company would prefer to carry the network as part of a premium service — not at the rate of 70 cents per customer per month the network is reportedly seeking.

"If we put all expensive sports programming on the standard tier of service, that would increase our rates to all of our customers, even those who didn't particularly care about football or these games," said Harrad.

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

"It's the most valuable programming a cable company can offer, and a cable company not carrying live NFL games is like a grocery store not carrying milk," Palansky said.

The NFL already makes a bundle from broadcasting agreements, money that is shared equally by all team owners. General Electric Co.'s NBC started broadcasting Sunday night games this year under a six-year, $600 million per year deal with the league, while Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN is paying $1.1 billion per year for Monday night football over eight years. Last year the NFL reached six-year, $8 billion extensions with Fox and CBS for Sunday afternoon games.

NFL team owners are betting their own network will offer other opportunities for building revenue in the future, including streaming programming over the Internet, through Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes and cell phones, Palansky said.

Palansky declined to release financial data for the network, including its revenues and losses to date, but the NFL said at the time of its launch three years ago that it expected to have $100 million in startup costs.

About two-thirds of the NFL network's 40 million households come from satellite TV subscribers who get either the Dish network from EchoStar Communications Corp. or DirecTV from The DirecTV Group Inc. By contrast, Disney's ESPN network is available in 92 million homes.

Until now, however, the network hasn't carried any NFL games live. Instead, it ran other football-related programming like news, interviews, game highlights and replays, plus games from NFL Europe.

The NFL is hoping that the appeal of the live games, which are scheduled for Thursdays and Saturdays, will help expand the network's audience. Bryant Gumbel and Cris Collinsworth will be the game announcers.

John Mansell, senior analyst at Kagan Research, a media research and analysis firm, says the dispute between the NFL and the cable companies is about "positioning, and money."

"Cable operators love the NFL, but they want to carry it on a digital tier, where they can use it as a destination for sports programming," Mansell said. "If it's going to be expensive, they want to receive compensation for it" from customers who pay premium fees.

The cable companies are in a tough spot on this dispute. If hard-core fans can't see the games they want, the complaints could start pouring in — something Time Warner says hasn't happened yet. On the other hand, no one's going to like it if the cable companies pass along the costs by raising rates.

Comcast, meanwhile, is being sued by the NFL Network after trying to switch over newly acquired cable systems to the arrangement already in place for existing subscribers.

Comcast executive vice president David Cohen said in a statement that the NFL is trying to "force cable companies to charge many consumers for programming they don't want. Sports programming fees are out of control in general and the NFL programming is very expensive."

Harrad of Time Warner says that cable companies may have already lost the most die-hard NFL fans years ago anyway when the NFL created a major package of games called NFL Sunday Ticket and sold it exclusively to DirecTV, which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

The full package costs $249 per year for access to up to 14 out-of-market regular season games every Sunday. In November of 2004, DirecTV announced a five-year, $3.5 billion agreement with the NFL to extend and expand their exclusive rights to carry NFL Sunday Ticket through the 2010 season.

In the end, it remains to be seen whether either side will blink. Time Warner says it doesn't expect a resolution prior to the first game. Meantime, the NFL Network's Web site is encouraging fans to request their cable operators carry the network.

Sports programmers and cable operators have clashed before, industry analysts note, as the costs for carrying sports continues to climb. Mansell notes that compromises are usually reached, however, and if there is a dispute, it's unusual for it to last beyond one year.

In the meantime, says Howard Horowitz of Horowitz Associates Inc., a market research and consulting firm: "the consumer will usually be asked by each side to blame the other side."

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Gotta be honest, I'm still on TWC's side here. And it sounds like the original story, TWC wants it on Digital Sports Tier - NFLN insists on Basic Tier, is true. Good for TWC.

 

[NoFBinLA]

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.Welcome to the corporate world people. They don't care about much but the $$ and their stockholders. That's their bottom line and they will - right or wrong - kowtow to it to the end.I wouldn't want to have to pick up the Digital Sports Tier and get OLN and a bunch of other crap I don't want for NFLN only. I get ESPN and FOXSPorts free (or included in basic). Why not NFLN? But I appreciate that TWC has to protect it's bottom line. As they should.I did enjoy the spin they gave me when I called them to inquire about it - they reminded me there are still loads of games on Sunday on regular broadcast tv. I didn't point out that, frankly, I didn't need them then. (I can't live without HBO and Showtime - I'm a Weeds/Entourage whore, what c an I say?)

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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.

Welcome to the corporate world people. They don't care about much but the $$ and their stockholders. That's their bottom line and they will - right or wrong - kowtow to it to the end.

I wouldn't want to have to pick up the Digital Sports Tier and get OLN and a bunch of other crap I don't want for NFLN only. I get ESPN and FOXSPorts free (or included in basic). Why not NFLN? But I appreciate that TWC has to protect it's bottom line. As they should.

I did enjoy the spin they gave me when I called them to inquire about it - they reminded me there are still loads of games on Sunday on regular broadcast tv. I didn't point out that, frankly, I didn't need them then. (I can't live without HBO and Showtime - I'm a Weeds/Entourage whore, what c an I say?)

Because the NFLN covers one sport, scratch that, one league? ESPN and Fox cover all sports. Are the Speed or NBATV channels on basic cable?

 

[NoFBinLA]

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.

Welcome to the corporate world people. They don't care about much but the $$ and their stockholders. That's their bottom line and they will - right or wrong - kowtow to it to the end.

I wouldn't want to have to pick up the Digital Sports Tier and get OLN and a bunch of other crap I don't want for NFLN only. I get ESPN and FOXSPorts free (or included in basic). Why not NFLN? But I appreciate that TWC has to protect it's bottom line. As they should.

I did enjoy the spin they gave me when I called them to inquire about it - they reminded me there are still loads of games on Sunday on regular broadcast tv. I didn't point out that, frankly, I didn't need them then. (I can't live without HBO and Showtime - I'm a Weeds/Entourage whore, what c an I say?)

Because the NFLN covers one sport, scratch that, one league? ESPN and Fox cover all sports. Are the Speed or NBATV channels on basic cable?

There is an NBATV channel like NFLN? I had no idea.It's a valid point though. Especially when you think about off season - during the season, it's a good veiwer draw. Off season? Not so much.

So sure, I see where you're coming from.

 

[Chainsaw]

Here is Charters's stance Charter. Wouldn't the NFLN be able to generate more advertising revenue with the additional viewers by allowing it to be added to digital sports tier instead of missing us viewers all together. It will be interesting to see if anything happens in the next few days.

I have avoided DTV as I don't want those receivers all over my house. I will consider switching if this does not get resolved soon. Or I will be spending a lot of Thurs/Sat watching games at my in-laws.