This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
This is what I was about to post. And that is why they are not willing to put it on basic. If "nobody seemed to care", why would cable companies want to take the financial hit to put it on basic...or raise the cable rates or restrict programming for those people who don't care about it. You all have got to stop approaching this issue like everyone in America loves football as much as you do.
Hi TII -Here is the decision. Glad to see the cable companies prevail. I understand it may cost us fans more, but, as you can probably tell from my other posts, I can't stand the fact that the NFL thinks it can muscle its way in and cause all of the people who could care less about football to have to pay more.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070511/ap_en_...ast_nfl_network
Hi MA. Thanks. As you can see from my posts I don't think the NFLN should be on the basic eighter.I pay the highest rate for digital cable that includes everything including the NFLN and interner service. Let me correct that.(before you do) My wife pays it, for the movie channels and when I saw that it included the NFLN, i agreed,and I know you remember that.Mystery Achiever said:
No, sorry if it seemed that way.. I just, in general, would like to see the NFL take a little more heat for trying to apply Walmart-like pricing tactics!
I have to laugh at the people that just rail on the cable companies for being greedy in this case when the NFL is being just as greedy. Both sides want the most money they can get. And given the fact that I personally get no monetary advantage from the NFL, but do get monetary advantage from the cable companies as a shareholder of several of them, it's hard not to root for them to get the best deal they can get.I also have a few CATV holdings, and I have to say that I think the industry shot themselves in the foot by not going all out to secure the Sunday Ticket a couple of years ago. CATV blew it by not getting the exclusive broadcast rights, because it could have made DirecTV an afterthought with consumers due to digital cable. Instead they allowed DirecTV to prosper to an extent, and now DirecTV is poised to have far more HD selections than most digital cable packages (once they get their new satellites fired up late in the summer).Now, CATV has a war on two fronts, with not only DirecTV but also with the exponential growth of the dialtone provider offerings. IMO cable had a chance to severely hurt DirecTV in what has become an increasingly competitive business. With the Ticket, they could have regained their hold on the old monopoly, with DirecTV merely a victim and the Verizon's of the world the latest challenger.Now it is a 3 horse race, and there is no doubt that the NFL is well aware of the threats that cable faces, as evidenced by their 'WalMart' tactics regarding the NFL Network.I have to laugh at the people that just rail on the cable companies for being greedy in this case when the NFL is being just as greedy. Both sides want the most money they can get. And given the fact that I personally get no monetary advantage from the NFL, but do get monetary advantage from the cable companies as a shareholder of several of them, it's hard not to root for them to get the best deal they can get.
I think this was once true, but it is fading.The NFL Network covers the NFL better than ESPN - as it should. ESPN is trying to keep pace, but I wouldn't be surprised if NFL-N eventually migrates further away from them..... but then again they're intermixed.It's a strange relationship - competing with a customer of theirs. That's always a problem.
ESPN is in the 2nd year of an 8-year, $8.8 BILLION deal to broadcast NFL games. This was a 35% increase per annum over any prior TV broadcasting deal and represent the NFL's largest single revenue stream. Not only that, but ESPN is NFL's most strategic broadcast partner because it's able to generate subscription fees in addition to traditional advertising revenues; the other networks aren't able to offer as lucrative bids to the NFL because it would be money-losing for them.The NFL Network has 7 years to get cable operators to bring them aboard before it can leverage ESPN in any way, shape or form. Meanwhile, the NFL should take a page from ESPN. ESPN gets $2.50 per cable subscriber; by far the highest of any network. The NFL can't be afraid of that same kind of model, but must also recognize that it only comes from being part of a tier.
I'm sure they will.You know, for as much complaining people do, if they were offered the NFLN for $5 extra I think they would consider it a bargain. I do.What say yee all, is $5 too much?
I already get the Digital Sports Tier on TW so I can get some more college football games, so I'm already paying the $5.
You need all the help you can get if you want to squeek out another win in the Anarchy League this year,I already get the Digital Sports Tier on TW so I can get some more college football games, so I'm already paying the $5.
i love #5 FAQ; it is disingenuous if Comcast wants to do this, but not if NFL does."5. I heard Comcast owns sport networks like Versus and The Golf Channel, and requires that they be included in broad packages sold to most if not all customers on Comcast and other cable systems, regardless of whether those customers are interested in the Tour de France, or hunting, or hockey. Isn't it disingenuous of Comcast to charge customers typically $5 per month to get sports networks that they don't own, like NFL Network, while forcing customers to pay for Comcast's networks whether they want them or not?
I will crush you!You need all the help you can get if you want to squeek out another win in the Anarchy League this year,I already get the Digital Sports Tier on TW so I can get some more college football games, so I'm already paying the $5.
belljr did you get notice that Comcast was going to change (stop NFLN broadcast on that date) and go to the $5 for the Sports package, on that date? I didn't.I just found out that they will not carry (at $1 something extra) the Big 10 channel. If that is the case I will go to Direct tv.I was ready to pay the $5 for the sports package(that was included with Adelphia but not Comcast now). However, if they won't carry the Big Ten channel I will switch.BTW this needs it's own thread.
No I do not remember seeing anything. I called and said my NFL network is not working , etc.I asked if I get a refund, she said no, they are on the Sports Tier now which includes, blah blah blah.I said I've canceled the sports tier in the past because it was not worth it (this was before CSTV was added).I then asked will it be in HD anytime soon (we don't get it in HD here) she said no.I was getting ready to hang up because I was figuring since we don't get the HD version here that the games would be shown on INHD again this year and I really only care about the games. *I'm not sure if this will be the case this year because of the move to the Sports Tier.Anyway she said they are running a 1 year special because of this change for 1.99 a month - so the sucker I am says ok.
$2 is way different than $5.....So I figure through training camp I'll have it and may cancel if I get get the games on INHD anyway.
I'd pay NOT to watch the Big Ten Network.Seriously, though, what are you doing for internet? That is the only reason I've not switched. I want to watch my Braves lose every night on SportSouth, but Comcast here doesn't carry it.Switching to Direct TV tomorrow morning between 8:00 to 12:00.Comcast refused to carry the Big Ten Network.
Verizon DSL 3mb. Got everything w/Direct TV including NFL Sunday Ticket for $70 for 4 month then $99 after that.I'd pay NOT to watch the Big Ten Network.Seriously, though, what are you doing for internet? That is the only reason I've not switched. I want to watch my Braves lose every night on SportSouth, but Comcast here doesn't carry it.Switching to Direct TV tomorrow morning between 8:00 to 12:00.Comcast refused to carry the Big Ten Network.
I think that this is the salient point and the crux of the NFLN vs. Cable battle.The NFLN has the ESPN model in mind for the long term...not this year, not next, but 5-10 plus years down the road. This also the same reason the cable companies have drawn a line in the sand.Flashback 20+ years ago when cable TV was in its infancy. They had a very limited number of channels (a "movie channel" or two, some PA offerings and not much else) to offer beyond the same over-the-air channels you could get for free. So, when an upstart sports network (ESPN) came along with it's twice a day Sportscenter sandwiched between slo-pitch softball games and Australian rules football they jumped at the chance to air it. It was cheap and it helped fill a programming void.The timing was right and ESPN grew, and grew (on basic cable) which was a good thing for both parties.Fast forward to today. ESPN aided by Cable TV (for purely selfish reasons) became the largest cable network in the country, a must have for Cable TV [How many of you wouldn't switch providers if Cable lost ESPN?]...and an entity capable of demanding, and getting $2.50/subscriber. I think Cable TV is saying we're not going to help you, NFLN, to expand your network on our dime on basic Cable only to have you bend us over in a few years and demand ESPN-type money.Personally, I don't care who "wins"...I just want the NFL network. It would be great if it were on basic, but I'd pay extra if it were available ala Carte. If my provider (Cablevision) doesn't get it soon, I'll probably end up switching to ATT or Direct TV even though it would be a huge PITA to swap my phone and ISP too.The killer is that within 10 years or so, all NFL games will be off of "free TV" and available on PPV only. That outcome is almost inevitable.ESPN is in the 2nd year of an 8-year, $8.8 BILLION deal to broadcast NFL games. This was a 35% increase per annum over any prior TV broadcasting deal and represent the NFL's largest single revenue stream. Not only that, but ESPN is NFL's most strategic broadcast partner because it's able to generate subscription fees in addition to traditional advertising revenues; the other networks aren't able to offer as lucrative bids to the NFL because it would be money-losing for them.The NFL Network has 7 years to get cable operators to bring them aboard before it can leverage ESPN in any way, shape or form. Meanwhile, the NFL should take a page from ESPN. ESPN gets $2.50 per cable subscriber; by far the highest of any network. The NFL can't be afraid of that same kind of model, but must also recognize that it only comes from being part of a tier.
I'm not sure I would want to have CATV stocks right now. Media distribution is shifting from CATV/Phone/Satelite to internet. Soon, I strongly feel that you will be able to purchase TV through the internet and you will just need to bring your own connection.
