Cable wary of NFL's Red Zone Channel offer

Posted: April 7, 2009

John Ourand
SportsBusiness Journal

The president from one of the country's biggest cable operators approached a reporter last week and retold a joke that he said was making the rounds at the cable industry's annual convention in Washington, D.C.

Question: What's the best way for DirecTV to market its exclusive NFL Sunday Ticket service?

Answer:

The Red Zone Channel.

The joke speaks volumes about the state of the NFL's relationship with the cable industry -- a relationship that has become so bad that the league's cable offerings are now a punch line.

The joke also offers the first glimpse at how cable distributors view the NFL's proposed Red Zone Channel, a new network the league is trying to sell to cable that provides live look-ins and real-time highlights during NFL games.

Cable still doesn't know much about the proposed channel, but it is nearly unanimously leery about carrying it.

Last week's Cable Show was the first time the cable industry gathered en masse since the NFL announced its $4 billion Sunday Ticket extension with DirecTV. Cable's overwhelming response to the deal, which keeps the popular Sunday Ticket service on cable's biggest competitor through the 2014 season, was filled with a mixture of resignation and confusion.

When it announced its Sunday Ticket deal, the NFL said it would make the Red Zone Channel available to cable operators as a stand-alone channel. Sort of a "Sunday Ticket Lite" offering, the channel would provide live look-ins and real-time highlights to the league's Sunday afternoon games. It would be sold to cable operators as a separate channel from NFL Network.

NFL executives are hoping to use the Red Zone Channel to entice cable operators to start carrying NFL Network.

"We want both fan-friendly services available as widely as possible," an NFL Network spokesperson said.

One problem, however, is that cable operators still don't know anything about the Red Zone Channel. They don't know how much it will cost. They don't know what it will look like. They don't know how the NFL plans to schedule the channel, or even if it will exist outside of football Sundays.

An NFL spokesperson said these questions will be answered over the next few weeks, as league executives meet with cable, satellite and telephone companies.

But cable's initial pessimism about the proposed channel is not good news for NFL Network, which is facing the loss of about 2 million subscribers after its Comcast deal expires at the end of the month.

Most of the cable operator executives contacted by SportsBusiness Journal last week worried that the proposed channel would become a marketing vehicle for DirecTV's service. Why just get the Red Zone Channel when you can get the entire Sunday Ticket service on DirecTV?

"It's an interesting idea," Comcast executive vice president David Cohen said. "But I don't think that it's a fully baked idea. And we certainly don't know or understand exactly what the NFL wants to do with it."

But cable's animus with the league goes beyond the Red Zone Channel. Cable executives are upset that the league continues to sell its popular outof- market package exclusively to DirecTV, especially when every other league sells its out-of-market package to both cable and satellite.

It's one reason why more than one high-ranking cable exec described NFL relations--which have not been particularly good for years--as being at an alltime low.

"It's unfortunate that this issue with the NFL Network has been taken to the level it's been taken to," said Bob Wilson, senior vice president of programming for Cox, one of the few big cable operators to have a deal with NFL Network. Others aren't shy about saying the lack of access to Sunday Ticket makes a deal for NFL Network less likely.

"Our members aren't happy about it," said Matt Polka, president of the American Cable Association, a group of small and medium-size cable operators. "They'd like access to that programming."

Comcast's Cohen said Comcast "made it crystal clear" to the NFL that it was interested in bidding for the package on a nonexclusive basis but was rebuffed.

"They have made it quite clear in every conversation where we have brought this up that we should stop focusing on their out-of-market package because they're not going to make it available to cable," he said.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=536116

Cable companies are afraid that offering the Red Zone Channel might lure subscribers to DirecTV? And what exactly do they think denying customers the NFL Network has done to customers' interest in switching to DirecTV?

Funny. Most sundays i just watch the RZC instead of games. Heck, I'd love the option to only have the RZC for a reduced price instead of having to pay for all of Sunday Ticket.

If one of the major media corporations, or Oprah, owned the NFL, they'd not only carry the Red Zone channel - they'd carry the Mid Zone channel that gets all the action as teams cross the 50 yard line. And the Fan Zone channel for the rabid fan that wants non-stop crowd shots from all over the country. :rolleyes:

Big cable just got busted by the FCC for trying to illegally coerce and intimidate the NFL into relinquishing ownership of the NFL Network in order to allow carriage. They need to just forget about the fans of the NFL and quit the endless whining - or pay for the product like they do with the scores of other niche channels available currently cluttering their lineup.

There are over 300 cable and telco companies carrying the NFL Network, plus the satellite companies.

Most of the cable operator executives contacted by SportsBusiness Journal last week worried that the proposed channel would become a marketing vehicle for DirecTV's service. Why just get the Red Zone Channel when you can get the entire Sunday Ticket service on DirecTV?

I guessed it never crossed an cable exec's mind that perhaps cable having RZC would get people to dump DirecTV in favor of cable, especially those who only want the RZC.

On RZC on my comcast system would definitely keep me at comcast and never entertain the thoughts of switching to sat. I can't believe how short-sighted the cable execs are being at this point on RZC.

The president from one of the country's biggest cable operators approached a reporter last week and retold a joke that he said was making the rounds at the cable industry's annual convention in Washington, D.C.

Question: What's the best way for DirecTV to market its exclusive NFL Sunday Ticket service?

Answer:

The Red Zone Channel.

I guess I don't get Cable Humor. Would it somehow be better for you to get exactly what you're getting right now, which is nothing?

I guess I don't get Cable Humor. Would it somehow be better for you to get exactly what you're getting right now, which is nothing?


Maybe, if the price is right.

Cable wary of NFL's Red Zone Channel offer

Posted: April 7, 2009

John Ourand
SportsBusiness Journal



Comcast's Cohen said Comcast "made it crystal clear" to the NFL that it was interested in bidding for the package on a nonexclusive basis but was rebuffed.

"They have made it quite clear in every conversation where we have brought this up that we should stop focusing on their out-of-market package because they're not going to make it available to cable," he said.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=536116These statements are somewhat suspect to me, I'd like to hear from the other side on this. It's always been my assumption that cable has been offered the package, but declined due to the price.

These remarks say flat out, cable will not have the package, presumably at any price. Now I know there are reasons why the NFL would not want the package available everywhere, issues with local stations primarily, but the way this is presented it's saying that cable never had a chance for the package... seems a bit odd to me.

Bidding for the package on a "nonexclusive basis"? Perhaps that was the problem. The NFL won't make nearly as much money if the NFL ST is available to everybody. If they wanted any chance at all, they would have had to outbid D*.

Funny. Most sundays i just watch the RZC instead of games. Heck, I'd love the option to only have the RZC for a reduced price instead of having to pay for all of Sunday Ticket.

I have to agree. I find myself watching the RZC more than anything. I don't think people realize how good a channel it is. I was more surprised that D* was willing to share this channel (were they forced?) This is a great pickup for cable, especially considering they won't have the opportunity for ST for several years.

I normally have enough interest in at least two games at 1pm that I prefer to flip between the two games. If I watch the RZC, it's normally at 4pm as the 2nd of my flip channels because I have only real interest in 1 game. Or during halftime of my primary games.

I like the option of having the RZC, but unlike some of you, I wouldn't consider it a replacement for ST at all.

I haven't seen this channel because I don't want to shell out $4 billion to get it, but I wonder if this will be available to non ST subs?

I haven't seen this channel because I don't want to shell out $4 billion to get it, but I wonder if this will be available to non ST subs?

That's the point of the topic. The RZC is a small part of NFL ST that they are going to be offering to cablecos (no cableco subs have NFL ST). So if your cableco offers it, any sub will have access to it.

That's the point of the topic. The RZC is a small part of NFL ST that they are going to be offering to cablecos (no cableco subs have NFL ST). So if your cableco offers it, any sub will have access to it.
Well my cable co happens to be DirecTV, and like mx6bfast, I'm very interested to know if DirecTV will allow it to be purchased separately. And since DirecTV already has the channel, maybe they'd start allowing it to be purchased separately for the upcoming season...

I have D*.

Ahhhh - that's a different issue. The knee-jerk guess would be that they don't want to cannibalize their NFL ST subscriptions. But it may be difficult to justify why your cableco offers it, but D* doesn't.

I wonder what percentage of D* subs are at risk of switching to cable for the RZC? I'm sure there's a fair number of ex-subs of NFL ST that remain with D* after reaching their price limit for ST.

I suspect that D* would offer it to non-subs. Most NFL ST subs aren't subs to see NFL highlights - they want to see their favorite teams play each week. But it's difficult to speculate when we don't know what the pricing structure is, and what conditions will be present for a cable subscription.

Why can't they show these live look-ins on the regular NFL Network channel, just like NHL Network and MLB Network do, instead of their current weak-ass practice of presenting a standard definition scoreboard on the screen, while piping in a lo-fi feed of the NFL satellite radio channel during games?

The NFL Network has a lot of nerve trying to gouge cable providers, and in turn subscribers, for such a weak product. They need to take a look at the far superior NHL and MLB Networks for a lesson in how to run things. NFL Network has such potential, especially with the vast NFL Films archive that is apparently just collecting dust these days, but it's consistently a disappointment. I sure as hell wouldn't pay a dime extra for anything they offer.

Why can't they show these live look-ins on the regular NFL Network channel, just like NHL Network and MLB Network do, instead of their current weak-ass practice of presenting a standard definition scoreboard on the screen, while piping in a lo-fi feed of the NFL satellite radio channel during games?

The NFL Network has a lot of nerve trying to gouge cable providers, and in turn subscribers, for such a weak product. They need to take a look at the far superior NHL and MLB Networks for a lesson in how to run things. NFL Network has such potential, especially with the vast NFL Films archive that is apparently just collecting dust these days, but it's consistently a disappointment. I sure as hell wouldn't pay a dime extra for anything they offer.

That's like what I was thinking - have NFL Network do their normal programming most of the time, then do the Red Zone thing during Sundays.

I actually find the whole idea of "NFL Network" to be a disgrace to football fans. The NFL created a channel that they can use to broadcast certain games that no other channel can carry. If you don't have NFL Network and your team is playing on that channel you can't watch the game; I'm surprised fans haven't been in an uproar about it. The NFL is getting REALLY greedy, they can't continue to gouge the fans and expect them to keep coming back spending more and more on an American past time.

It started when ESPN got access to Monday Night Football, the difference was that over 90% of the people with either cable or satellite already received the channel..no additional costs for the majority of people. Then the NFL Network comes along and says "We want our own channel for more revenue, but nobody is going to want it unless we Force them to need it". Satellite and Cable operators where left with 3 choices:

1. Carry the channel and charge everyone for it. - Raised bills
2. Carry the channel and make it a add-on - Angry subscribers that feel it should be free
3. Don't carry the channel at all - Angry fans and NFL Network

Two years ago my area was faced with a problem, the Packers where playing but the game was only being broadcasted on NFL Network. Charter did not offer the channel and the majority of people in our area didn't even know the channel existed. Our Congressman actually got involved and was able to get the game on a local CBS station. The story was in our local newspaper and on the local news days prior and after the game. The NFL Network assumed everyone was going to be mad at Charter and was probably hoping it would push them into a corner to carry the channel (every commercial break played the same 3 stooges in a cafe bickering about not having the channel). The problem is that a lot of people here didn't like being put into that position, you can only blame Charter for so much because ultimately it was the NFL's greed that kick started the whole thing.

I've since gone to Direct TV for other reasons but I hear about a new NFL controlled channel and all I can think about is..."What now!?" How is the NFL going to try and shoe-horn this channel into everyone's living room? When will it stop, will we only be able to watch Football on channels owned or operated by the NFL? Don't think this isn't in the cards; the NFL would love to capture some more of the revenue the Super Bowl generates as well as revenue from all other games currently being shown on CBS, FOX and ABC/ESPN. It all starts with "1", we allowed the NFL Network to exist by bending to their will for our love of the game. They know it works and will continue to push it on us until we stop paying for something we shouldn't have to pay for. All they have to do is say "Starting in 2011 the Super Bowl will be exclusively carried on the Red Zone Channel; contact your local cable or satellite subscriber and find out how you can get into the action today"

Bidding for the package on a "nonexclusive basis"? Perhaps that was the problem. The NFL won't make nearly as much money if the NFL ST is available to everybody. If they wanted any chance at all, they would have had to outbid D*.
I'm not sure that's true. Having all providers kick-in smaller amounts each for a nonexclusive package could still add up to the $4B that D* is paying exclusively (in the US). And why couldn't the NFL include the NFL Network as a requirement for that package, killing 2 birds with 1 stone? Instead, they have alienated many of the Cable providers and their customers. Smells like arrogance to me.

Mickey

I'm not sure that's true. Having all providers kick-in smaller amounts each for a nonexclusive package could still add up to the $4B that D* is paying exclusively (in the US). And why couldn't the NFL include the NFL Network as a requirement for that package, killing 2 birds with 1 stone? Instead, they have alienated many of the Cable providers and their customers. Smells like arrogance to me.

Mickey

Why would you pay an exorbitant amount for a non-exclusive item? D* is paying a huge premium, not for the NFL ST revenue, but for the exclusivity that can pull customers from cable. If MSO's aren't gong to pay that premium, there's not a chance it would add up to the $1 billion they are getting from D*.

And since D* has had NFL ST for so long, the vast majority that are motivated enough to pay for ST have likely already migrated to D*. That means you aren't going to get a huge influx of new subscribers just by widening availability.

I actually find the whole idea of "NFL Network" to be a disgrace to football fans. The NFL created a channel that they can use to broadcast certain games that no other channel can carry. If you don't have NFL Network and your team is playing on that channel you can't watch the game; I'm surprised fans haven't been in an uproar about it. The NFL is getting REALLY greedy, they can't continue to gouge the fans and expect them to keep coming back spending more and more on an American past time.

It started when ESPN got access to Monday Night Football, the difference was that over 90% of the people with either cable or satellite already received the channel..no additional costs for the majority of people. Then the NFL Network comes along and says "We want our own channel for more revenue, but nobody is going to want it unless we Force them to need it". Satellite and Cable operators where left with 3 choices:

1. Carry the channel and charge everyone for it. - Raised bills
2. Carry the channel and make it a add-on - Angry subscribers that feel it should be free
3. Don't carry the channel at all - Angry fans and NFL Network

Two years ago my area was faced with a problem, the Packers where playing but the game was only being broadcasted on NFL Network. Charter did not offer the channel and the majority of people in our area didn't even know the channel existed. Our Congressman actually got involved and was able to get the game on a local CBS station. The story was in our local newspaper and on the local news days prior and after the game. The NFL Network assumed everyone was going to be mad at Charter and was probably hoping it would push them into a corner to carry the channel (every commercial break played the same 3 stooges in a cafe bickering about not having the channel). The problem is that a lot of people here didn't like being put into that position, you can only blame Charter for so much because ultimately it was the NFL's greed that kick started the whole thing.

I've since gone to Direct TV for other reasons but I hear about a new NFL controlled channel and all I can think about is..."What now!?" How is the NFL going to try and shoe-horn this channel into everyone's living room? When will it stop, will we only be able to watch Football on channels owned or operated by the NFL? Don't think this isn't in the cards; the NFL would love to capture some more of the revenue the Super Bowl generates as well as revenue from all other games currently being shown on CBS, FOX and ABC/ESPN. It all starts with "1", we allowed the NFL Network to exist by bending to their will for our love of the game. They know it works and will continue to push it on us until we stop paying for something we shouldn't have to pay for. All they have to do is say "Starting in 2011 the Super Bowl will be exclusively carried on the Red Zone Channel; contact your local cable or satellite subscriber and find out how you can get into the action today"

You might have a point if this is the attitude that prevailed years ago when every media outlet started cranking out subscription cable channels that were forced into our basic package.

You look at ESPN a year ago, when you should be looking at them many years ago when they and TNT carried 8 games each. When ESPN added the whole package of 16 games, they were able to demand about $1 a sub per month - unheard of at the time - solely due to the 16 NFL games they offered (it wasn't the lumberjack and tractor pull competitions). Now they get closer to $4 per sub from those 90% that have ESPN (they get about $5 if you sub to HBO). They generate in excess of $4 billion from our pockets, but you give them a pass because the cablecos and other MSOs force us to subscribe to ESPN in their basic packages?

So you feel that one of the most marketable media products in the country should not have a cable network - but it's perfectly acceptable for the cablecos to make us pay for the scores of other niche channels that appeal to a small fraction of subscribers by comparison? That's ridiculous. Scroll down your program guide and look at all the channels you are paying for and imagine the size of the niche they appeal to (including the MLB and Golf channels) - and can you honestly tell me that there's no room for the NFL?

The problem here isn't NFL greed - it's the MSO's attitude that an independent company has no right to carriage on this country's television system. If the cablecos were successful in strong arming the NFL into relinquishing ownership of the channel in order to gain carriage on their systems - what do you think would have been the outcome? I'll tell you what would have happened - they would have added it into the wider tier and worked in the carriage fee into your subscription costs - just like the NFL is trying to do now.

But I guess in that case, you'd have no problem with a cableco-owned NFLN adding another 8 or 16 games into their exclusive schedule and jacking up the price another buck or two - since 90% of the country will already have access with "no additional cost".

Why would you pay an exorbitant amount for a non-exclusive item? D* is paying a huge premium, not for the NFL ST revenue, but for the exclusivity that can pull customers from cable. If MSO's aren't gong to pay that premium, there's not a chance it would add up to the $1 billion they are getting from D*.

And since D* has had NFL ST for so long, the vast majority that are motivated enough to pay for ST have likely already migrated to D*. That means you aren't going to get a huge influx of new subscribers just by widening availability.
In order for your argument to work, you have to dismiss the counter-argument that there is a value to the cablecos to unseat the Exclusive ST franchise from D*. That value might encourage the cablecos to also over-pay for ST. However, there is no evidence that the NFL has explored that possibility.

Mickey

In order for your argument to work, you have to dismiss the counter-argument that there is a value to the cablecos to unseat the Exclusive ST franchise from D*. That value might encourage the cablecos to also over-pay for ST. However, there is no evidence that the NFL has explored that possibility.

Mickey

This was already put to the test back in 2002. The consortium of cable companies offered only $400 million for the exclusive rights (via a last minute memo/press release - not an actual bid) or they'd accept non-exclusive rights if D* matched their offer.

Cable - $400 million - for 65 million subs
D* - $400 million - for 13 million subs

Obviously that wouldn't wash. Cable's "offer" was just for window dressing to impress their customers, not a real aggressive attempt to acquire the rights. But it allowed them to continue to scream about the unfairness of it all while retaining the terrestrial exception that allows them to deny satellite companies access to Comcast Philly SportsNet - probably their primary priority.

If you don't have NFL Network and your team is playing on that channel you can't watch the game

thats not true....if the local teams here (giants & jets) are on NFLN then the game is also simulcast on channel 11 which is a free over the air channel everyone in the ny metro area gets.

You might have a point if this is the attitude that prevailed years ago when every media outlet started cranking out subscription cable channels that were forced into our basic package.

You look at ESPN a year ago, when you should be looking at them many years ago when they and TNT carried 8 games each. When ESPN added the whole package of 16 games, they were able to demand about $1 a sub per month - unheard of at the time - solely due to the 16 NFL games they offered (it wasn't the lumberjack and tractor pull competitions). Now they get closer to $4 per sub from those 90% that have ESPN (they get about $5 if you sub to HBO). They generate in excess of $4 billion from our pockets, but you give them a pass because the cablecos and other MSOs force us to subscribe to ESPN in their basic packages?

So you feel that one of the most marketable media products in the country should not have a cable network - but it's perfectly acceptable for the cablecos to make us pay for the scores of other niche channels that appeal to a small fraction of subscribers by comparison? That's ridiculous. Scroll down your program guide and look at all the channels you are paying for and imagine the size of the niche they appeal to (including the MLB and Golf channels) - and can you honestly tell me that there's no room for the NFL?

The problem here isn't NFL greed - it's the MSO's attitude that an independent company has no right to carriage on this country's television system. If the cablecos were successful in strong arming the NFL into relinquishing ownership of the channel in order to gain carriage on their systems - what do you think would have been the outcome? I'll tell you what would have happened - they would have added it into the wider tier and worked in the carriage fee into your subscription costs - just like the NFL is trying to do now.

But I guess in that case, you'd have no problem with a cableco-owned NFLN adding another 8 or 16 games into their exclusive schedule and jacking up the price another buck or two - since 90% of the country will already have access with "no additional cost".

I think you might be missing my point, everything you have mentioned concerning ESPN is a direct result of NFL's greed. They could have easily said "We have to look out for our fans best interest". but didn’t..why...GREED. The problem I have is the NFL doesn't need its own network, they are not doing this for "The fans" as the press releases say, its ridiculous to even believe that. They are only doing this for the sole purpose of making more money off of the fans...that’s all! If they were doing this "for the fans" then they wouldn't have jacked up the price from its initial offering; wouldn't have PURPOSLY taken high profile games off of standard networks and placed them on their channel and certainly wouldn't be campaigning so hard to have all Cable Co's as well as other video services to carry their network. The cable companies have a very good point, why pay for a service that those who actually want it wont even watch after the season ends?

I might not want to watch WE or Oxygn but I do like Discovery Channel, Sifi, Bravo, BBC, History Channel etc etc. My wife on the other hand could care less about those channels but does like her Lifetime movies and the garbage that’s on Oxygn and WE. So while I understand your point about all of the "special interest" channels you have to realize that they are only "special interest channels" to those who don’t want them. If Discovery only aired new episodes of programs in a 2 month span of time and then had NOTHING after that I would be very upset paying for it. You are also allowed to sign up for different tiers that give access to different channels; nobody is forcing you to have WE, its in a different tier and guess what..so is NFL Network. So the NFL Network wants its channel added to the first tier making it available to everyone right from the start...for the fans...NOT! Since they get paid per subscriber having EVERYONE get the channel drastically increases their revenue...but its for the fans...honest.

When the vast majority of Football games are on existing channels (and the majority of those channels are free OTA) the fact that the NFL wants to create its own channel and place games that normally would be seen by just about everyone to a new network that now costs money to view I see that as robbing the fans...but this is still for the fans.

We wouldn't stand for it if Fox decided American Idol needed its own station, a station that only showed re-winds of previous seasons and was the sole option for watching the complete season as some weeks would be "restricted" to the American Idol Channel. Yet defending the NFL for such actions is acceptable? You would have a public outcry from people who don’t watch American Idol being forced to pay for it, those that do pay for it mad because its content is only good 3 months out of the year and even more people giving up on the show because of the practice.

I'm sorry we view this practice differently; the NFL was created by the fans, the whole industry is alive because of the fans. The NFL is making money hand over fist from fans and now DEMANDS that someone foot the bill for them to create a new network to show games people normally could see for free....this is for the fans! How does this make the cable companies look bad? How could anybody besides the NFL look bad when this is what is happening?

I don't know if this issue of cable operators and the NFL Network has hit you like it has me and many others or not. I don't have to worry about this any longer because I have Direct TV and therefore get the NFL Network. Yet I'm not as concerned about me as I am of those around me who are still stuck in the middle of a dispute that should have never happend to begin with

I might not want to watch WE or Oxygn but I do like Discovery Channel, Sifi, Bravo, BBC, History Channel etc etc. My wife on the other hand could care less about those channels but does like her Lifetime movies and the garbage that’s on Oxygn and WE. So while I understand your point about all of the "special interest" channels you have to realize that they are only "special interest channels" to those who don’t want them.

That's ridiculous. Of course there's a handful that want every channel. You really believe that more people want LOGO, Oxygen, ESPN Classic, and most of the other channels than the NFL?

20% of the country watches NFL football every Sunday - yet you are outraged that a cableco would force non-fans to subsidize its carriage? But you don't mind me having to subsidize your wife's Oxygen?

NFL should just stick to their guns. Any remaining fans of the NFL stuck with those few companies that still don't offer NFLN can migrate to FIOS or Satellite. The cablecos were just busted by the FCC for the bogus games they are playing with the NFL - the NFL should just forget trying to deal with them in good faith. They know the deal, if they don't want it, who cares?

thats not true....if the local teams here (giants & jets) are on NFLN then the game is also simulcast on channel 11 which is a free over the air channel everyone in the ny metro area gets.

Actually we both are correct, while its true you could watch the games because you can recieve that channel in "NY Metro Area" those on the outside who are still fans couldn't. In fact where I live when the Pack was playing, Milwaukee and Green Bay where the only stations allowed to broadcast it. I live in the U.P. of Michigan (basically Wisconsin) and we were shut out until our congressman stepped in. I'm sure many people where you live that don't live in the Metro Area where on the outs as well.

All fans that live outside of their favorite team's local area have to deal with missing games. That's why NFL ST exists.

If you want games on ESPN, you have to get ESPN. If you want games on NFLN, you have to get NFLN. Simple as that. If you want games on FOX or CBS, that aren't offered by your local affiliate, you're out of luck - unless you want to get NFL ST.

If your MSO doesn't give you the options that you want, find one that does.

All fans that live outside of their favorite team's local area have to deal with missing games. That's why NFL ST exists.
Yep. Weak argument.

T The cablecos were just busted by the FCC for the bogus games they are playing with the NFL - the NFL should just forget trying to deal with them in good faith. They know the deal, if they don't want it, who cares?

Second time I've seen a mention of this, do you have a link, or some search words so I can find it? I doubt cable and NFL are going to narrow it down enough. :D

Actually we both are correct, while its true you could watch the games because you can recieve that channel in "NY Metro Area" those on the outside who are still fans couldn't. In fact where I live when the Pack was playing, Milwaukee and Green Bay where the only stations allowed to broadcast it. I live in the U.P. of Michigan (basically Wisconsin) and we were shut out until our congressman stepped in. I'm sure many people where you live that don't live in the Metro Area where on the outs as well.

but u made a blanket statement saying if you don't have NFLN and your team is playing on that channel you cant watch the game which isnt true.

That's ridiculous. Of course there's a handful that want every channel. You really believe that more people want LOGO, Oxygen, ESPN Classic, and most of the other channels than the NFL?

20% of the country watches NFL football every Sunday - yet you are outraged that a cableco would force non-fans to subsidize its carriage? But you don't mind me having to subsidize your wife's Oxygen?

NFL should just stick to their guns. Any remaining fans of the NFL stuck with those few companies that still don't offer NFLN can migrate to FIOS or Satellite. The cablecos were just busted by the FCC for the bogus games they are playing with the NFL - the NFL should just forget trying to deal with them in good faith. They know the deal, if they don't want it, who cares?

If I didn't know any better I would assume you have a stake in the NFL Network! You are completely missing the point, like its going completely over your head. The NFL Network was only created to increase revenue for the NFL, the only way they could do this was by restricting certain games from being seen outside of the NFL Network. The NFL is trying to strong arm the cable companies into carying an inferior product on the premise that they (the cableco) will lose subscribers by infuriating Fans.

The NFL Network is a sham, you like to paint the cableco as the bad guys but if you do any research on the stuff the NFL network has been pulling the entire time its pathetic!

Comcast moved NFL network from a Digital Tiers package to a Sports Tier package. NFL didn't like the loss of revenue (but the fans would have switched packages right NFL?) but obviously the NFL over estimated its value. A judge ruled that Comcast didn't break any laws, now the NFL Network filed for an appeal. Next they tried to sue Comcast for providing their solely owned sports channels free to thier customers. (Did you get that, NFL thinks its being discrimentated against because Comcast isn't charging its customers for a service Comcast owns and is giving away free to its subscribers!)

Cox wanted to cary the NFL Network on their "Sports and Information Tier" guess who didn't like that? NFL Network only wants their channel to be on Basic Tiers (because then everyone has to have it/pay for it) NFL Network subseaded and now COX has it on the Sports and Information Tier <--Good going Cox!

Dish Network decided it too wanted to move the NFL Network from a standard "Americas Top 100" package to the "Americas Top 200" package. The move cost NFL Network the loss of around 4 million subscribers (seriously 4 million people didn't think the service was worth more money?), so guess who is being sued now?

Charter had NFL Network for a while, until the NFL Network wanted to increase rates by 2x and demand that it be on the basic tier. Hmm..I wonder if this was around the time they started to broadcast games?

Notice a trend? Nothing that the NFL has argued over has anything to do with "Fans" and everything to do with money. They want every cable/sattelite operator to put its channel in the basic lineup and want somebody besides them to pay for it! I have NFL Network and even I think its a sham, more so then WE or Vs or whatever else is out there because NFL Network is trying to strong arm its way into every home using its product "The Sport of Football" as a means to get people to be submissive.

We didn't need the NFL network; we already had access to the games before they were around. Now that they are here we don't have access to those games unless we pay them for it. Why is this so hard to understand by NFL Network supporters?

All fans that live outside of their favorite team's local area have to deal with missing games. That's why NFL ST exists.

If you want games on ESPN, you have to get ESPN. If you want games on NFLN, you have to get NFLN. Simple as that. If you want games on FOX or CBS, that aren't offered by your local affiliate, you're out of luck - unless you want to get NFL ST.

If your MSO doesn't give you the options that you want, find one that does.



And your still missing the point..here lets make that list larger so you can see where this is all going.

If you want games on ESPN, you have to get ESPN. If you want games on NFLN, you have to get NFLN. If you want games on TRZ, then you need to get TRZ. If you want to have games on NFLNE, then you have to get NFLNE. If you want to watch the playoffs on NFLNP, then you need to have NFLNP.

Am I the only person who is seeing this trend that started with ESPN and is getting worse with the launch of NFLN? If the NFLN succeeds in shoe-horning thier way into every American home its not going to stop.

The NFL Network was only created to increase revenue for the NFL,

As opposed to all the other channels which were created for charitable purposes? :rolleyes:

the only way they could do this was by restricting certain games from being seen outside of the NFL Network. The NFL is trying to strong arm the cable companies into carying an inferior product on the premise that they (the cableco) will lose subscribers by infuriating Fans.

They aren't "restricting" anything. These are a total of 8 games that previously had no national audience. You will still get the same number of games each week, even if you don't have NFLN. This is a mini-8 game NFL Sunday Ticket package that allows everyone in the country to pad their NFL fix by 8 games a year.

It's laughable that you claim NFL is strong arming. They have a product they feel has value, and a few cablecos are refusing to pay what it is worth. It is the cablecos who are treating the NFL with strong arm tactics that they do not apply to the NFLN's competitors. Let's see Comcast tell NBC Universal that they won't carry Sci Fi or Bravo unless they get an ownership stake in those channels. The MLB fell for it - the NFL won't.

but u made a blanket statement saying if you don't have NFLN and your team is playing on that channel you cant watch the game which isnt true.

Thats not exactly true, Pack vs Cowboys; cable in homes across Texas such as San Antonio, Waco and Austin where shut out. Same for Packers fans in Wisconsin who live outside Green Bay and Milwaukee. So I guess we should have gotten Sunday Ticket then or shame on us for not living closer to those cities right?

People living in those areas (ding ding ding, I was one of them) where shut out of a game that normally we would have had. Its not a blanket statement because MANY fans are/will and have been affected by it. I shouldn't need a Sunday Ticket to see my home team play on TV! Or is that where the NFL would like to take the next step to gouge fans even more?

Am I the only person who is seeing this trend that started with ESPN and is getting worse with the launch of NFLN? If the NFLN succeeds in shoe-horning thier way into every American home its not going to stop.

That ship sailed 15 years ago.

NFLN2 or ESPN5....what's the difference - except who gets the revenue?

Thats not exactly true, Pack vs Cowboys; cable in homes across Texas such as San Antonio, Waco and Austin where shut out. Same for Packers fans in Wisconsin who live outside Green Bay and Milwaukee. So I guess we should have gotten Sunday Ticket then or shame on us for not living closer to those cities right?

People living in those areas (ding ding ding, I was one of them) where shut out of a game that normally we would have had. Its not a blanket statement because MANY fans are/will and have been affected by it. I shouldn't need a Sunday Ticket to see my home team play on TV! Or is that where the NFL would like to take the next step to gouge fans even more?

And Harrisburg, PA is forced to watch Ravens games instead of Steeler games. That's the breaks.

I still don't get why you willingly pay for LOGO and ESPN to get their programming, but then complain that you aren't given an extra 8 NFL games for free.

I shouldn't need a Sunday Ticket to see my home team play on TV!
Your market doesn't have a "home team." You're in a secondary market, not a primary market.

NFLN makes the same accommodations that ESPN does for home team broadcasts on cable stations.

As opposed to all the other channels which were created for charitable purposes? :rolleyes:

They aren't "restricting" anything. These are a total of 8 games that previously had no national audience. You will still get the same number of games each week, even if you don't have NFLN. This is a mini-8 game NFL Sunday Ticket package that allows everyone in the country to pad their NFL fix by 8 games a year.

It's laughable that you claim NFL is strong arming. They have a product they feel has value, and a few cablecos are refusing to pay what it is worth. It is the cablecos who are treating the NFL with strong arm tactics that they do not apply to the NFLN's competitors. Let's see Comcast tell NBC Universal that they won't carry Sci Fi or Bravo unless they get an ownership stake in those channels. The MLB fell for it - the NFL won't.


Umm..so your saying for the last 10 years we had games on Thursday? No your not; your saying the NFL created games on thursday that they could use as a platform to launch thier own network! Ta-Da; see how easy it was to figure out what the NFL is/are trying to do? What is stopping them from adding games to Wednesday too and having those games picked up only by The Red Zone channel? The answer..NOTHING!

Thier product has value??? As you said 8 games a year; the value they created is in that sentance..8 games a year! That is not a value it is armed robbery to Football fans that are being forced to pay for it! The NFL is not my drug dealer, I don't need a "Fix"; if they are going to create more games then they should be doing it for the fans; the money should be a distant 3rd. The NFL network is all about the money and the fans are a distant 3rd.

And Harrisburg, PA is forced to watch Ravens games instead of Steeler games. That's the breaks.

I still don't get why you willingly pay for LOGO and ESPN to get their programming, but then complain that you aren't given an extra 8 NFL games for free.

I'm not getting 8 extra games for free, somebody has to pay for it and it obviously isn't being paid for by the NFL Network; so obviously I am paying for it. I signed up to pay for Logo and ESPN when I ordered that Tier, that tier had channels I wanted to I payed to have them and "accept" the other channels as a means to an end.

The difference is the NFL Network never needed to exist, its plain ol' GREED on the NFL's part to create extra games only for the use of launching the NFL Network. I don't like the fact that I have to pay a yearly subscription for the NFL network on the off chance that they might have my team playing on a Thursday night.

Umm..so your saying for the last 10 years we had games on Thursday? No your not; your saying the NFL created games on thursday that they could use as a platform to launch thier own network! Ta-Da; see how easy it was to figure out what the NFL is/are trying to do? What is stopping them from adding games to Wednesday too and having those games picked up only by The Red Zone channel? The answer..NOTHING!

How many games did you get for free on broadcast television before ESPN and NFLN? How many do you get now?

The same? Exactly.

For those that choose to pay a subscription to the extra channels - you get the opportunity to see extra games. Subscribe to both channels and you get an extra 1 1/2 games a week. Subscribe to NFL ST and you get them all.

Thier product has value??? As you said 8 games a year; the value they created is in that sentance..8 games a year! That is not a value it is armed robbery to Football fans that are being forced to pay for it! The NFL is not my drug dealer, I don't need a "Fix"; if they are going to create more games then they should be doing it for the fans; the money should be a distant 3rd. The NFL network is all about the money and the fans are a distant 3rd.

If you don't see the value in 8 NFL games and all the other NFL programming, then find an MSO that spends your subscription money on programming that is more up your alley. D* offers those NFLN programming at no extra charge for its subscribers - so do many others.

Thats not exactly true, Pack vs Cowboys; cable in homes across Texas such as San Antonio, Waco and Austin where shut out. Same for Packers fans in Wisconsin who live outside Green Bay and Milwaukee. So I guess we should have gotten Sunday Ticket then or shame on us for not living closer to those cities right?

People living in those areas (ding ding ding, I was one of them) where shut out of a game that normally we would have had. Its not a blanket statement because MANY fans are/will and have been affected by it. I shouldn't need a Sunday Ticket to see my home team play on TV! Or is that where the NFL would like to take the next step to gouge fans even more?

u said:

"If you don't have NFL Network and your team is playing on that channel you can't watch the game"

so your statement says without NFLN u cant watch....but i gave an example of where that isnt the case.

The NFL is not my drug dealer, I don't need a "Fix"; if they are going to create more games then they should be doing it for the fans; the money should be a distant 3rd. The NFL network is all about the money and the fans are a distant 3rd.

This is business and there is money to be by having a package of game on NFL Network. Money is real but adding games just for the enjoyment of fans is just a nice concept that does not pay.

The difference is the NFL Network never needed to exist

But the rest of the 100 channels in your lineup "needed" to exist? Biography couldn't remain a weekly 1 hour show on A&E? Now you get the same show on its own network with 23 hours of the same Law & Order reruns you find on half a dozen other channels.

There's no sense in debating this with you. The NFL will only appeal to football fans. Football fans have just as much right to expect that their MSO's will add the niche programming that interests them into the broader packages so it can be subsidized by everyone else. As far as niches go, the NFL is certainly much larger than the majority of other channels we are subsidizing. But you are taking the opposing view to a ridiculous level. You not only are unwilling to pay $1 a month for NFL programming and to get an extra 8 games broadcast into your home each year - you don't want anybody to be able to get those 8 extra games.

How many games did you get for free on broadcast television before ESPN and NFLN? How many do you get now?

The same? Exactly.


To be fair the NFLN package is partly made up of games that FOX and CBS used to have on Saturday afternoons in late December. So there are a few less game available from the OTA networks.

The Logo channel was created to cater to an audience, the GOD channel was created to cater to an audience. The NFL Network was created to restrict the audience.

Its like saying.

NFL: "Hey you, yeah you with the Bears cap; come here"
NFL: "Do you want to see an extra Bears game this year on TV?"
Fan: "Gee golly, you bet I do; what day and time is it going to be on?"
NFL: "We knew you would, its going to be on-on a Thursday at 7pm"
Fan: "Mister, there isn't any games played on Thursday"
NFL: "We know, thats why we created games on Thursday so fans can see more"
Fan: "My Gosh, Mister; your the best!"
NFL: "I know, I know; now all you have to do is get NFL Network so you can watch it"
Fan: "It's not going to be on regular TV?"
NFL: (Chuckle) "No, No; but don't worry everyone is going to want it; so you will have it"
Fan: "Gee willipers, the NFL is giving us another free game!"
NFL: "Whoa, slow down there; who said it was free?"
Fan: "But I thought you said everyone will want it so I will get it"
NFL: "Yeah they will but it's not free, someone has to pay for it you know"
Fan: "I don't understand, we already pay for cable and stuff and get to see the games"
NFL: "So whats the big deal, you already pay to see the games; this isn't any different"
Fan: "So I can't see the game unless I pay for NFL Network?"
NFL: "Why yes, of course; but you get to see another game!"
Fan: "Gee, thanks; I think"
NFL: "Now go run along now and tell all your friends to switch to Direct TV"

To be fair the NFLN package is partly made up of games that FOX and CBS used to have on Saturday afternoons in late December. So there are a few less game available from the OTA networks.

That's true. CBS and FOX lost a Sat. game each right?

That's true. CBS and FOX lost a Sat. game each right?

2 each I believe, let me pull out the old schedule.

The Logo channel was created to cater to an audience, the GOD channel was created to cater to an audience.

And who caters to the fan of the NFL that enjoys the programming available in the NFL Films library?

NFL Network.

Clearly it's of no interest to you, but NFLN has programming year round for the football fan. Something no other channel offers.

But the rest of the 100 channels in your lineup "needed" to exist? Biography couldn't remain a weekly 1 hour show on A&E? Now you get the same show on its own network with 23 hours of the same Law & Order reruns you find on half a dozen other channels.

There's no sense in debating this with you. The NFL will only appeal to football fans. Football fans have just as much right to expect that their MSO's will add the niche programming that interests them into the broader packages so it can be subsidized by everyone else. As far as niches go, the NFL is certainly much larger than the majority of other channels we are subsidizing. But you are taking the opposing view to a ridiculous level. You not only are unwilling to pay $1 a month for NFL programming and to get an extra 8 games broadcast into your home each year - you don't want anybody to be able to get those 8 extra games.


How many times are we going to go through this? I'm probably the only one in this conversation who actually has any empathy towards football fans! I'm the one saying the NFL Network should have never been created. I'm the one saying Fans shouldn't have to pay more to watch thier team play. I'm the one arguing the fact that those fans who are unable to get the broadcasts because of cable/NFL not reaching deals are the ones who suffer.

I WANT EVERYONE!! <--pay attention...EVERYONE to have those extra 8 games; I just don't want ANYONE to have to pay for something that should have been free to begin with! Don't paint me as the person who is trying to keep fans from being able to enjoy watching football games. If you truely want people to be able to see football games then you would rather the games be played on local networks and existing networks..not new networks people don't have or will then have to pay for.

If the NFL Network never existed this wouldn't be an issue..so who is truely to blame?

What's really funny is Comcast likes to ignore the programming and focus only on the 8 games. They claim that those 8 games aren't worth much.

But those are the same 8 games that Comcast offered $400 million a year for the rights so that they could be aired on OLN. Do you really think if they were successful, they wouldn't have demanded a higher premium for OLN - something they did immediately after adding the NHL and its anemic ratings to the lineup?

And who caters to the fan of the NFL that enjoys the programming available in the NFL Films library?

NFL Network.

Clearly it's of no interest to you, but NFLN has programming year round for the football fan. Something no other channel offers.

Sure, but the NFL Network knew they wouldn't get very many subscribers without forcing Fans to need the channel. How they did that was simple, they restricted who could broadcast certain games to force fans to need the NFL Network to watch those games. Do you think the NFL Network would have any clout going against Cable/Satellite companies if all they offered was NFL Film Library? They would have been laughed away so fast, so obviously they had to do something and thats why we are now having this discussion.

By the way, although I like debating topics back and forth I respect everyone's opinion. I can only believe I am right and nothing I say should be taken too seriously; if I offended anyone I do apologize.

With that out of the way I'm still right and your still wrong.....we may continue :D

I WANT EVERYONE!! <--pay attention...EVERYONE to have those extra 8 games;

I'd like everyone to get all the NFL games, the whole NFL ST package, for free. And if I ever decide that I no longer want to pay the NFL ST fee, I won't start to whine that nobody should be able to buy the package.

What's really funny is Comcast likes to ignore the programming and focus only on the 8 games. They claim that those 8 games aren't worth much.

But those are the same 8 games that Comcast offered $400 million a year for the rights so that they could be aired on OLN. Do you really think if they were successful, they wouldn't have demanded a higher premium for OLN - something they did immediately after adding the NHL and its anemic ratings to the lineup?

Here is something I hope we both can agree on, GREED is present on both sides of the table. Luckily the NFL Network realized that by only offering those games to Comcast they would have alienated and pissed off quite a few fans.

How many times are we going to go through this? I'm probably the only one in this conversation who actually has any empathy towards football fans! I'm the one saying the NFL Network should have never been created. I'm the one saying Fans shouldn't have to pay more to watch thier team play. I'm the one arguing the fact that those fans who are unable to get the broadcasts because of cable/NFL not reaching deals are the ones who suffer.

Your the one living in a fantasy world, not dealing with the real business issues at hand. By your reasoning ESPN and TNT should not have gotten the NFL 20 years ago because it was taking games away from the broadcasts networks.

I WANT EVERYONE!! <--pay attention...EVERYONE to have those extra 8 games

& i wanna date Carrie Underwood.

Sure, but the NFL Network knew they wouldn't get very many subscribers without forcing Fans to need the channel. How they did that was simple, they restricted who could broadcast certain games to force fans to need the NFL Network to watch those games. Do you think the NFL Network would have any clout going against Cable/Satellite companies if all they offered was NFL Film Library? They would have been laughed away so fast, so obviously they had to do something and thats why we are now having this discussion.

You mean they actually added something that people are willing to pay for to make the channel more attractive? Those sneaky bastidges.

What's next? Baseball games on MLB, original dramas on HBO, exclusive reality shows on the Reality Channel ??? My God, where will it all end?

I'd like everyone to get all the NFL games, the whole NFL ST package, for free. And if I ever decide that I no longer want to pay the NFL ST fee, I won't start to whine that nobody should be able to buy the package.

I'm sorry I don't follow, I'm all for the NFL Network for those who want it for watching old games, documentaries etc etc. Seriously I think its great to have a channel dedicated only to the sport of Football. However, I don't like being forced into paying for a channel on the chance that my team might play on a day that I can only see them if I have that channel. That is my whole issue with the NFL Network, its not about what people want; its about what they are taking away from people unless they buy thier product. Imagine being told tomorrow that you can't watch a Sunday game unless you buy an NFL approved TV. Or that you can't buy bear unless its Pabst Blue Ribbon. (Extreme I know)

Here is something I hope we both can agree on, GREED is present on both sides of the table. Luckily the NFL Network realized that by only offering those games to Comcast they would have alienated and pissed off quite a few fans.

No, Comcast would have put it on OLN and made the channel available to all the MSOs - for a fee of course. It wasn't the alienation of fans - it was the simple fact that the NFL realized they could make more money with their own network. That's business.

That's true. CBS and FOX lost a Sat. game each right?

The 8 games are made up of 2 games from the other primetime packages (MNF and SNF) and 6 games from the CBS/FOX package. The 6 games from the afternoon package were either Saturday games or regional games depending on when the weeks fell and when Christmas was each season.

Sure, but the NFL Network knew they wouldn't get very many subscribers without forcing Fans to need the channel. How they did that was simple, they restricted who could broadcast certain games to force fans to need the NFL Network to watch those games.

The NFL restricted access to game long before NFL Network was around. If it was all about access for the fans there would be games on ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and hell why not CW as well each weekend. It might be good for the fans but it is not good for business so that is why the NFL does not allow it.

You know, the time is going to come really quick when your going to stand back and say to yourself "I can't believe this is happening". At that moment I want you to remember this debate, it might not happen to Football (probably will) but this is how everything starts.

The smokers have been asking themselves this a lot lately.
Home owners have been asking themselves this a lot lately.
GM and Ford employess have been asking themselves this a lot lately.
Christains have been asking themselves this a lot lately.

My point is it always starts small, a small inconvience we take on the chin and eventually accept. Then comes the snowball, the accumulation of different sacrafices made because they seem so small at the moment until finally we realize "its different" and "I don't like what is happening now".

Not all change is bad, for the most part I think the vast majority of change is very good. Everything I listed above can be viewed from both angles, as good and bad; but the point is its always "Bad" to someone.

When will Football fans see the "Bad" of the NFL trying to express ultimate control over a sport supported by fans? When will watching a Football game be considered a privalledge for many instead of a common occurance for all. When will an organization that makes billions off of loyal fans truely do something for the fans without the need for significant financial gains.

I can't debate this topic any longer, I clearly disagree with the way NFL Network has been handling things and in my opinion distastefull way they are treating the fans of the sport. Yet it is only my opinion and everyone is entitled to be right or wrong and I know when my play clock has finally reached 00:00.

Enjoy the season..its right around the corner!

When will an organization that makes billions off of loyal fans truely do something for the fans without the need for significant financial gains.

About the same time that billion dollar cable companies give loyal longterm customers free cable or when oil companies lower gas prices just because they feel it would be the nice thing to do for customers.

The suggestion of having the live look-ins on the NFL Network makes a lot more sense than what the NFL wants to do now. As was also said, the NHL & MLB Nets do it.

The suggestion of having the live look-ins on the NFL Network makes a lot more sense than what the NFL wants to do now. As was also said, the NHL & MLB Nets do it.
It makes a lot more sense if the NFL wanted to give it away. They want to charge extra for it, so it would not make more sense to have it on NFLN.

Regarding all cable subscribers subsidizing other's 'niche' channels, the bottom line is channel ratings vs. the cost to carry the channel. According to this comparison, Hallmark, Food TV and Oxygen deliver more viewers per dollar of cost than ESPN, NFLN, etc...

Cost per .1 rating:

NFLN .74

ESPN .53

TNT .09

NatGeo .08

WE .05

Oxy .03

Food .01

Hallmark .01

Note: Due to timing this doesn't reflect the fall season when NFLN and ESPN would presumably have higher ratings (see link for methodology)

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/12/31/cost-per-cable-channels-as-a-function-of-ratings/10102

I'm sorry I don't follow, I'm all for the NFL Network for those who want it for watching old games, documentaries etc etc. Seriously I think its great to have a channel dedicated only to the sport of Football. However, I don't like being forced into paying for a channel on the chance that my team might play on a day that I can only see them if I have that channel. That is my whole issue with the NFL Network, its not about what people want; its about what they are taking away from people unless they buy thier product. Imagine being told tomorrow that you can't watch a Sunday game unless you buy an NFL approved TV. Or that you can't buy bear unless its Pabst Blue Ribbon. (Extreme I know)

Here's a flaw in your thinking: All NFL Network live games are available via OTA, for free, in each of the home TV markets of the teams playing. Home TV market fans of both teams will always be able to see the games.

This is no different than the current situation with all other NFL games. Home TV market viewers see their team. They also see a few other select out of market games, and the weekly national games. If you want to see an out of market team every week, NFL ST is the option. At least it is an option.

Having said that, I agree NFL Network is way off base, and has been since inception, in how they are trying to get carriage. Look at how successful MLB & Big Ten are, right out of the chute. In the end it's always about the money, and the NFL is more spoiled than most in this respect. The only solution is to stop watching. Will that happen? Very unlikely.

Note: Due to timing this doesn't reflect the fall season when NFLN and ESPN would presumably have higher ratings (see link for methodology)

Not only that, they don't account for the number of subscribers. With only 40 million subs vs. the roughly 90 million for most of the other cable nets - that means with comparable carriage, the cost of NFLN per .1 RTG would drop to about $0.33. Much closer to that of ESPN Classic at $0.30, and substantially less than ESPN at $0.53.

Plus, like you pointed out. The fact that they only used the 8 months with no football, makes it pretty clear what their agenda was. Showing ESPN and NFLN ratings without the NFL is the equivalent of ranking Cartoon Network or the Disney Channel using only late night / early morning viewership.

Having said that, I agree NFL Network is way off base, and has been since inception, in how they are trying to get carriage. Look at how successful MLB & Big Ten are. In the end it's always about the money, and the NFL is more spoiled than most in this respect. The only solution is to stop watching. Will that happen? Very unlikely.

MLB is successful because they buckled and granted a third of ownership of their network to 4 key MSOs. Big Ten has the clout of News Corp behind its push for carriage.

I'm pro-NFLN not as a football fan, but as a fan of independent networks breaking into this system our MSOs and a handful of media companies have created. I don't view the NFL as "spoiled" just because they refuse to accept the MSOs viewpoint that they are the gatekeepers of all programming offered to the public - the same viewpoint that discourages allowing consumer demand drive the addition of a channel if that channel is not controlled by the "cartel".

I don't view the NFL as "spoiled" just because they refuse to accept the MSOs viewpoint that they are the gatekeepers of all programming offered to the public...
Neither do I. I think they are spolied because they are the most watched TV sport, they command more money than any other sport, and this gives them more leverage than is good for the average fan. Of course, this wasn't by accident; the NFL is the best run of all pro sports.

MLB is successful because they buckled and granted a third of ownership of their network to 4 key MSOs. Big Ten has the clout of News Corp behind its push for carriage.

I'm pro-NFLN not as a football fan, but as a fan of independent networks breaking into this system our MSOs and a handful of media companies have created. I don't view the NFL as "spoiled" just because they refuse to accept the MSOs viewpoint that they are the gatekeepers of all programming offered to the public - the same viewpoint that discourages allowing consumer demand drive the addition of a channel if that channel is not controlled by the "cartel".
Cartel? Please explain (and avoid using "cable cabal"). This is ironic since the way in which owners of professional sports teams conduct business more nearly fits that definition.

Mickey

This argument is pretty interesting.

Read what Comcast has to say about it:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090409/OPINION03/904090335/1008/OPINION01

Now, my 2 cents:

When NFLN launched, there were NO live games. There were some live studio shows. In the summer or late spring they aired Euro League games live and that was it for live football. For this great programming, they were asking to be carried on the basic tier at a price above more compelling programmers. Like the cable guy or don't like, would you accept that deal? Now throw in the fact you are interested in the Sunday Ticket package which was recently renewed with D* right before the NFLN launch. You feel snubbed and on top of that, they won't allow you to put them on a tier. You can put NBA TV on a tier (also note MLB Net is on digital packages, but have not seen it on any basic packages. I could be wrong). At the time, NBA TV had more live games than what NFLN was coming with. Plus, they had game night shows that were live. From a business standpoint, as cable ops do with all programmers, there might be no compelling reason to carry the channel unless it was on a tier.

Why would Comcast have carried them then? Well to sweeten the pot for the possibility of getting the Thursday night package. The package that they decided was better suited on NFLN. The reason? To get more compelling content on it. It probably was one of the primary reasons MSOs gave for not carrying them.

I think if NFLN had allowed ops to carry them on a digital tier (yes, not sports tier. But, digital tier) at launch, they could have at least been in more homes. But, they wanted to be on basic. Pricing would have been an issue, but not as much. Right now they are not on those systems, but they would have at least had that $$ from being on the digital tier in those systems. They could have renegotiated to move to basic on the next go around.

Why does D* carry them on a non-tier? Well if you were all digital already (thus no digital tier) and you got exclusive Sunday Ticket, wouldn't you carry them?

Cartel? Please explain (and avoid using "cable cabal"). This is ironic since the way in which owners of professional sports teams conduct business more nearly fits that definition.

Mickey

Just look at the owners of the channels and the MSOs - and how the proliferation of channels and carriage fees has occurred over the past 20 years. Too much to get into in this thread, and too obvious to repeat anyway.

And I'm not suggesting that they are the only cartel-like group in the country - or even in this dispute.

NFL Network Remains On Dish's Classic Silver 200 Package After Settlement

Pro Football Service Stays On DBS's Second Most-Penetrated Tier

Mike Reynolds -- Multichannel News

Dish Network and NFL Network, which have been knocking helmets in court over positioning for the pro football service, said they have reached an out-of-court settlement.

The agreement, other terms of which were not disclosed, calls for the No.2 satellite provider to continue to carry NFL Network on its Classic Silver 200 programming package.

Dish Network pulled NFL Network from the "free preview" on its America's Top 100 package, moving it to its AT200 tier on Feb. 20, 2008, in response to the channel's decision to simulcast a Dec. 28, 2007 game on CBS and NBC that featured the then-undefeated New England Patrios against the New York Giants.

NFL Network then filed suit against Dish in New York State Supreme Court after the move, which resulted in the pro football league's in-house channel losing about 4 million subscribers. The Classic Silver 200 programming package reaches around 8 million Dish subscribers. NFL Network currently counts some 42 million subscribers.

"We are very pleased that our NFL Network will continue to be distributed in millions of homes on Dish Network," said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in a statement."We look forward to having our Network's upcoming coverage of the April 25-26 NFL Draft showcased on Dish Network."

Noted Dish chairman, president and CEO Charlie Ergen: "The NFL Network is a great complement to our programming lineup and we are pleased to offer the channel to our subscribers."

The settlement with Dish follows NFL Network's recent renewal with DirecTV, which came in conjunction with the top DBS operator inking a four-year extension for the league's out-of-market Sunday Ticket package.

Next Tuesday, NFL Network's program carriage complaint against top cable operator Comcast with the Federal Communications Commission will go before an Administrative Law Judge.

The service's contract with Comcast, which has now carries it on a sports tier, expires at month's end.

if the NFL & Dish can get an agreement why not the NFL & the cable guys ?

if the NFL & Dish can get an agreement why not the NFL & the cable guys ?
Dish probably isn't even interested in NFLST. The cable companies are.

if the NFL & Dish can get an agreement why not the NFL & the cable guys ?

Most cablecos have added NFLN. It's just a few large ones that are holding out because the NFL lacks the clout to force the issue. Dish Network's parent company doesn't own their own cablenets, so they add channels based on price vs. demand.

There's so much bad blood now, it's unlikely that any fair agreement will be agreed upon. If the cablecos were willing to offer the NFL similar treatment to the other cablenets, TWC wouldn't have refused sending the issue to binding arbitration.

Dish probably isn't even interested in NFLST. The cable companies are.

Dish would love NFL ST, but like the cable companies, they aren't willing to pony up the billion+ dollars a year it would take to outbid D*.

I wonder if Verizon would've taken NFLST if it had been offered to them.

I wonder if Verizon would've taken NFLST if it had been offered to them.

If Verizon had offered the right amount of money sure. However, they would need to partner with someone else because they do not have a national footprint like D*.

Here's a flaw in your thinking: All NFL Network live games are available via OTA, for free, in each of the home TV markets of the teams playing. Home TV market fans of both teams will always be able to see the games.


They are only available in the home market and none of the surrounding markets. In many areas in the country, there are large fan bases that are excluded that are less than 60 miles from the team. I find this to be a huge flaw in the NFL Network/OTA game setup.

They are only available in the home market and none of the surrounding markets. In many areas in the country, there are large fan bases that are excluded that are less than 60 miles from the team. I find this to be a huge flaw in the NFL Network/OTA game setup.

Isn't it the same primary market OTA coverage that ESPN games get?

Isn't it the same primary market OTA coverage that ESPN games get?

Yep. Although with ESPN, availability is much greater with ESPN, so it is not the issue it is with NFL Network.

Yep. Although with ESPN, availability is much greater with ESPN, so it is not the issue it is with NFL Network.

Sounds like an issue with the MSOs in those areas. The 15+% of the country that gets their TV from OTA sources only are in the same boat whether it is ESPN or NFLN. Like ESPN, the "availability" is determined by whether or not the MSO wants to carry the channel. To suggest that the NFL should widen the coverage wider than ESPN so that the cablecos that reject the value of the NFL can get the benefit of the channel for free doesn't seem fair. Plus, the vast majority of viewers in those secondary markets have the option of getting an MSO that carries NFLN if they see the value in it.

300 cablecos carry NFLN - why should they change the OTA policy to accommodate just a few cable holdouts?


To get back on topic - has anyone heard of what the terms might be for the Red Zone channel?

Sounds like an issue with the MSOs in those areas. The 15+% of the country that gets their TV from OTA sources only are in the same boat whether it is ESPN or NFLN. Like ESPN, the "availability" is determined by whether or not the MSO wants to carry the channel. To suggest that the NFL should widen the coverage wider than ESPN so that the cablecos that reject the value of the NFL can get the benefit of the channel for free doesn't seem fair. Plus, the vast majority of viewers in those secondary markets have the option of getting an MSO that carries NFLN if they see the value in it.

I wasn't suggesting the NFL change the OTA rule for NFL Network games. I was just saying how much more of an audience it affects when a game is on the NFLN because few of the major cable carriers are offering it.

My only issue with the NFL is their stance on not letting cable ops put it on a sports tier. Because of this stance, none of these large cable companies are going to offer it. Sure, the cable companies are using this as their excuse, but until the NFL backs down on this stance, I don't see how this situation will be resolved.

has anyone heard of what the terms might be for the Red Zone channel?

per sportsbusinessjournal 4/06/09 on redzone:

"An NFL spokesperson (Greg Aiello ?) said these questions will be answered over the next few weeks, as league executives meet with cable, satellite and telephone companies."

NFL RedZone cable channel cutting it close


By JOHN OURAND
Staff writer
Published August 17, 2009 : Page 01

Just four weeks before the planned launch of the NFL RedZone channel, only one cable operator has agreed to carry it, thrusting the league into yet another round of carriage battles with the cable industry.

When the channel launches Sept. 13, the first Sunday of the regular season, only Comcast, the country’s biggest cable operator, plans to roll out the channel on its sports and entertainment tier, which has close to 2 million subscribers.

So far, little is known about the fledgling channel, which is mirrored after the Red Zone Channel from DirecTV’s popular Sunday Ticket service — right down to the same name, though with a different structure. Both services are tailored for fantasy football enthusiasts, providing live look-ins to the league’s Sunday afternoon games, plus updated statistics and scoring plays.

The league originally planned to launch its NFL RedZone in 2012, but that schedule was accelerated in May when the NFL extended its deals with CBS and Fox by two years (See SportsBusiness Journal, May 18-24). The NFL’s Sunday afternoon broadcast partners needed to give the league permission to use its game productions for a cable-only red zone channel.

The league’s NFL RedZone will be produced by NFL Network and overseen by President Steve Bornstein. It is separate from DirecTV’s channel, which is part of its NFL Sunday Ticket service. The NFL is building a set for the channel at its NFL Network studios and has yet to settle on a host or other talent to work on the show. With distribution at launch expected to be low, the league isn’t expected to attach much advertising to the channel.

But distribution looks to be an issue. So far, all cable operators besides Comcast have passed. Several cable executives who have seen the plans for NFL RedZone say the channel is too expensive — the same complaint used against NFL Network.

Cable sources say the NFL’s initial offer is for about 25 cents per subscriber per month, a rate that puts NFL RedZone on par with Golf Channel.

However, cable executives say it’s difficult to compare NFL RedZone to a network like Golf Channel. Golf Channel is a 24-hour, year-round channel and cable executives have been told that NFL RedZone will only exist during Sunday afternoon NFL games, from the start of the 1 p.m. ET games through the late afternoon games, which amounts to about seven or eight hours a week, 17 weeks a year.

One holdup for several cable operators is the NFL’s demand that they agree to carry NFL Network in order to get access to NFL RedZone. Three of the five biggest cable operators, Time Warner, Charter and Cablevision, still have not struck deals to carry NFL Network, deals that were expected to be struck easily once Comcast signed its deal in May and presumably set the market. These cable operators are still balking at the NFL’s price (50 to 60 cents) and tiering (digital basic) demands for NFL Network.

But even operators that have deals to carry NFL Network, including Cox, are resisting the channel.

An NFL Network spokesman said the league is in discussions with cable operators and other providers and hopes to have more signed up by its launch. NFL Network COO Kim Williams is taking the lead in the cable negotiations.

Meanwhile, DirecTV is continuing to produce its own Red Zone Channel this season, having started rehearsals with channel host Andrew Siciliano earlier this month.

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/63222

no interest in it.

no interest in it.

Since I don't sub to ST anymore, I'm looking forward to it.

put on Sports Tier on Comcast = no interest. Not paying extra for this, and the Tennis Channel, and Fox Soccer Channel, etc.

Put it on NFL Network.

Put it on NFL Network.

Indeed, NFL Network doesn't do games on Sunday right? So why have another channel that's only value is on Sunday?

So why have another channel that's only value is on Sunday?

Because the NFL wants to get an extra .25/subscriber. Talk about greedy. You would think they would at least try to fix the NFL Network carriage issue before jumping into something like this. It really doesn't make the NFL look very good. Now they are going to have carriage issues on two channels, not just one.

So do we know if this will be free to non-ST subs?

So do we know if this will be free to non-ST subs?
Honestly, I'd be surprised if DirecTV even offered it to non-ST subs for a fee. I think it'll remain exclusive to ST on DirecTV.

So do we know if this will be free to non-ST subs??

Meanwhile, DirecTV is continuing to produce its own Red Zone Channel this season, having started rehearsals with channel host Andrew Siciliano earlier this month.

D* has their own Red Zone, they won't be carrying the NFL version.

The NFL version is cable only.

AT&T U-Verse is coming to Memphis. If they offered the NFL Red Zone, it would be goodbye D* (for TV) AND Comcast (for Internet).

(Posting this in the hope that the idea gets back to AT&T.)

Because the NFL wants to get an extra .25/subscriber. Talk about greedy. You would think they would at least try to fix the NFL Network carriage issue before jumping into something like this. It really doesn't make the NFL look very good. Now they are going to have carriage issues on two channels, not just one.

But they could still get that 25 cents per subscriber out of the NFLN when it comes time to renegotiate carriage for NFLN, since they've now added significant new value to the NFLN. Or, since most carriers haven't even signed on at this point, they could shake up the ongoing negotiations with Charter, Cablevision, and TWC right now and get that money more or less right now.

This level of greed makes Viacom's constant bickering over carriage fees almost seem reasonable. Who's in charge of these negotiations? Who's counseling the NFL to take the incredibly unreasonable hard line?

But they could still get that 25 cents per subscriber out of the NFLN when it comes time to renegotiate carriage for NFLN, since they've now added significant new value to the NFLN. Or, since most carriers haven't even signed on at this point, they could shake up the ongoing negotiations with Charter, Cablevision, and TWC right now and get that money more or less right now.Actually, most cable providers now have NFL Network. The NFL would have to wait until it's time to re-negotiate with those other providers to get that extra $.25. Or, they could just try for the money grab now.

Who's in charge of these negotiations? Who's counseling the NFL to take the incredibly unreasonable hard line?Probably the NFL itself in both regards.

D* has their own Red Zone, they won't be carrying the NFL version.

The NFL version is cable only.
Thanks. I asked earlier and no one knew.

Who's counseling the NFL to take the incredibly unreasonable hard line?

And Cable doesn't use the same approach?

A little more current info: http://www.multichannel.com/article/328264-NFL_Net_Drop_Kicks_Off_Season_TV_Deals.php

A little more current info: http://www.multichannel.com/article/328264-NFL_Net_Drop_Kicks_Off_Season_TV_Deals.php

That article says directv has ST thru 2013....but its really thru 2014.

I thought all contracts were now through the 2013 season (into 2014). Fall 2014 would be the new contracts.

NFL, DirecTV Extend Sunday Ticket Package Through 2014 Season

March 24 (Bloomberg) -- The National Football League’s Sunday Ticket package will remain on DirecTV through 2014.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=aJD.ZwUAPmDo&refer=home


NFL and DIRECTV Extend NFL SUNDAY TICKET™ Agreement through 2014 Season
NEW YORK and EL SEGUNDO, Calif., March 23, 2009 — The National Football League announced today an agreement to extend DIRECTV's rights to carry NFL SUNDAY TICKET™. DIRECTV will continue to have exclusive television rights to air the package of Sunday afternoon games through the 2014 NFL season.

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/article.jsp?assetId=P5590122

An article I read last week on USA today on my iPhone suggested that the NFL Red Zone Channel would be not only distinct from the DirecTV Red Zone Channel, but also different. Unlike the DirecTV channel, the NFL one won't be continuously showing football. That to me stinks.

The best part of the DirecTV channel is that except when all games are at halftime, there is ALWAYS live football being shown. The NFL channel will show other crap rather than give us continuous football and only switch over for red zone activity. So the NFL Red Zone Channel doesn't really make up for a lack of the DirecTV Red Zone Channel.

The NFL channel will show other crap rather than give us continuous football and only switch over for red zone activity.
I'm sure DirecTV, Fox, and CBS were the ones who insisted on that.

Dish will now carry the NFL Red Zone channel:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17054514#post17054514

Dish Joins Comcast In NFL RedZone

Both Distributors Will Kick Off Scoring Service Sept. 13

Mike Reynolds -- Multichannel News, 8/24/2009

Dish Network has become the second affiliate to sign up for NFL RedZone, the NFL Network's rookie scoring channel. Like Comcast, which committed to service, the No. 2 satellite provider will kick off NFL RedZone with the start of the pro football league's regular season on Sept. 13. Dish will position it on channel 155, in both standard- definition and high-definition, as part of the Multi-Sport Package, which is available to most Dish Network customers at $5.99 per month. Similarly, Comcast is making RedZone available as part of its Sports Entertainment Package.

Deal terms were not disclosed. Both distributors, which had been engaged in legal battles with NFL Network, reached new agreements with the NFL's in-house service earlier this year.

In April, Dish and NFL Network reached an out-of-court settlement -- other terms of which were not disclosed -- under which Dish will continue to carry NFL Network on its Classic Silver 200 programming package over a multiyear term. Dish pulled NFL Network from the "free preview" on its America's Top 100 package, moving it to its AT200 tier on Feb. 20, 2008, in response to the channel's decision to simulcast a Dec. 28, 2007 game on CBS and NBC that featured the then-undefeated New England Patrios against the New York Giants.

In May, Comcast announced that on Aug. 1 it would move NFL Network to Digital Classic, its second most widely penetrated package with 10.8 million subscribers, from its sports tier. During the conference call announcing the deal, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts said the nation's leading distributor would position NFL RedZone on its Sports Entertainment Package, with the launch officially announced Aug. 24.

NFL RedZone, produced by NFL Network and hosted by Scott Hanson from the network's new studio at its Los Angeles headquarters, will whip around every NFL game on Sunday afternoons delivering the touchdowns and most exciting moments as they develop. The channel aims to keep fans updated in real time, switching from game to game with live look-ins, highlights and a chance to see every important play.

"We are pleased to announce the first two deals for our new NFL RedZone channel that complements the live broadcasts of NFL games on CBS and Fox Sunday afternoons," said NFL Network COO Kim Williams in announcing the launches. "We are in discussions with other distributors and look forward to announcing more distribution deals for one of the most exciting new products now available to cable operators and telcos."

"NFL RedZone is the most exciting thing to happen to football since high definition," said Dish CMO Ira Bahr. "There's no better way to kick off the 2009 NFL football season than by changing the way America watches football, and Dish Network is pleased to offer consumers an opportunity to catch every touchdown and the biggest plays as they happen."

"Inside the 20, fans are focused, leaning forward on the edge of their seats. With NFL RedZone, our customers get that intense live action experience for all the NFL games on every Sunday afternoon," said Derek Harrar, general manager and senior vice president of Video Services for Comcast. "The addition of NFL RedZone represents yet another major enhancement to our overall sports offering for Comcast customers."

So, dumb question time - D* will not carry NFL RedZone for folks that do not subscribe to the NFL Season Ticket?

So, dumb question time - D* will not carry NFL RedZone for folks that do not subscribe to the NFL Season Ticket?

That is correct, since the only two NFL RedZone carriers at this time are Comcast & Dish.

Could D* add NFL RedZone for non-NFL ST subs? Yes, but I believe that's highly, highly unlikely.

I think much more likely, would be D* offering their NFL Red Zone to non-NFL ST subs for a yearly price.

We shall see.

I'm sure DirecTV, Fox, and CBS were the ones who insisted on that.

I get that, but the point is:

DirecTV RZC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NFLN RZC

It's not even close in terms of the experience each channel offers. I am not sure everyone here is aware that there are big differences between these two channels.

I get that, but the point is:

DirecTV RZC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NFLN RZC

It's not even close in terms of the experience each channel offers. I am not sure everyone here is aware that there are big differences between these two channels.

?

You can't say what the difference is. No one has ever seen the NFL version.

Wait until we at least see it before making judgments.

Well if the new RZC can only show LIVE plays from within the 20 yardline then thats already a major difference to me.

My feeling is a deal is going to get done with providers like TWC/BrightHouse, Charter, etc.

What do the bigwigs like Ken at this site think the chances are of a deal getting done soon?

Well if the new RZC can only show LIVE plays from within the 20 yardline then thats already a major difference to me.Where did you read that RZC can only show LIVE plays from within the 20 yardline? The promotional video on the NFL Network website (http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork) touts that they will show highlights and that you will see every touchdown score and all of the key plays.

As Ken said, wait until RZC airs before you decide it isn't as good as the other version.

Where did you read that RZC can only show LIVE plays from within the 20 yardline? The promotional video on the NFL Network website (http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork) touts that they will show highlights and that you will see every touchdown score and all of the key plays.

As Ken said, wait until RZC airs before you decide it isn't as good as the other version.

Yes u will see all the scores but some as highlites not LIVE.

"On Sundays, the channel will display football statistics with audio from Sirius XM Radio's program "Around the League" — and go live to certain games when the ball is within 20 yards of the goal."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2009-08-16-braodband-directv-football_N.htm

Yes u will see all the scores but some as highlites not LIVE.

"On Sundays, the channel will display football statistics with audio from Sirius XM Radio's program "Around the League" — and go live to certain games when the ball is within 20 yards of the goal."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2009-08-16-braodband-directv-football_N.htm

That's how I read it as well.

I still think it's ridiculous to have this as a stand-alone channel, RZC should have been incorporated into the NFL Network channel... but then they wouldn't be getting that extra money for it now would they?

That's how I read it as well. ?

Ok, how is anyone supposed to predict when they 99 yard TD play is going to occur?

I simply love how some people interpret press releases.

?

You can't say what the difference is. No one has ever seen the NFL version.

Wait until we at least see it before making judgments.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2009-08-16-braodband-directv-football_N.htm (I saw this was just posted, but this was the article I read on my iphone last week that led to my opinion)

Cable operators won't just play defense in the battle for football fans. Comcast will announce today that it will offer the NFL Red Zone Channel to customers of its Sports Entertainment Package. On Sundays, the channel will display football statistics with audio from Sirius XM Radio's program "Around the League" — and go live to certain games when the ball is within 20 yards of the goal.

That's PLENTY enough to make a judgment that NFLN RZC is much much worse than DirecTV RZC. It's not continuous football like the DirecTV RZC (except when all games are at halftime), and that alone takes away from the value of NFLN RZC. DirecTV RZC is great because you can watch all day and you are always seeing live football action (Except when all games are at the half). NFLN RZC? You'll be "Watching stats" except when a team is in the red zone. Sure they'll switch to that, and I suspect you'll get highlights for those 99 yrd TD's. But otherwise, you'll be watching "Stats" and listening to "Sirius XM." I'm sorry, but that sounds pretty weak IMHO. Especially when "Red Zone Channel" certainly brings up the idea of DirecTV's "Red Zone Channel." I understand DirecTV may not be happy, but if the NFL deal with them allows them to show stuff like this, I don't see why NFLN can't produce an RZC to mimic DirecTV's RZC. After all, it's the NFL who has DirecTV by the throat, not vice versa. Remember that.

?

Ok, how is anyone supposed to predict when they 99 yard TD play is going to occur?

I simply love how some people interpret press releases.

That one would undoubtedly be a highlight and not live.

This is all speculation anyways, I'm curious about it as I don't sub to ST anymore, I just hope it has a bit more value than what has been speculated on here.

Ok, how is anyone supposed to predict when they 99 yard TD play is going to occur?
They would show it as a highlight, just like DirecTV would do on their channel, and just like CBS and Fox do with their game breaks.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2009-08-16-braodband-directv-football_N.htm (I saw this was just posted, but this was the article I read on my iphone last week that led to my opinion)



That's PLENTY enough to make a judgment that NFLN RZC is much much worse than DirecTV RZC. It's not continuous football like the DirecTV RZC (except when all games are at halftime), and that alone takes away from the value of NFLN RZC. DirecTV RZC is great because you can watch all day and you are always seeing live football action (Except when all games are at the half). NFLN RZC? You'll be "Watching stats" except when a team is in the red zone. Sure they'll switch to that, and I suspect you'll get highlights for those 99 yrd TD's. But otherwise, you'll be watching "Stats" and listening to "Sirius XM." I'm sorry, but that sounds pretty weak IMHO. Especially when "Red Zone Channel" certainly brings up the idea of DirecTV's "Red Zone Channel." I understand DirecTV may not be happy, but if the NFL deal with them allows them to show stuff like this, I don't see why NFLN can't produce an RZC to mimic DirecTV's RZC. After all, it's the NFL who has DirecTV by the throat, not vice versa. Remember that.That does sound pretty weak. However the USA Today article is not consistent with the description of the RedZone content given by the NFL Network in their "behind-the-scenes" film clip (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8121e539/Behind-the-scenes-of-NFL-RedZone), which talks about "continuous NFL action", "live look-ins and immediate highlights".

I don't know whether the RedZone will be good or not. I don't plan to pass judgment until I see it.

That does sound pretty weak. However the USA Today article is not consistent with the description of the RedZone content given by the NFL Network in their "behind-the-scenes" film clip (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8121e539/Behind-the-scenes-of-NFL-RedZone), which talks about "continuous NFL action", "live look-ins and immediate highlights".

I don't know whether the RedZone will be good or not. I don't plan to pass judgment until I see it.

It still can be consistent if NFLN just plans to keep airing highlights over and over again when no team is in the red zone.

That does sound pretty weak. However the USA Today article is not consistent with the description of the RedZone content given by the NFL Network in their "behind-the-scenes" film clip (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8121e539/Behind-the-scenes-of-NFL-RedZone), which talks about "continuous NFL action", "live look-ins and immediate highlights".

I don't know whether the RedZone will be good or not. I don't plan to pass judgment until I see it.
That sounds better. :)

which talks about "continuous NFL action", "live look-ins and immediate highlights".
It's kind of a stretch, but the Sirius XM simulcast could be considered "continuous NFL action."

I think comcast and dish is the only one carrying this.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2009-08-16-braodband-directv-football_N.htm (I saw this was just posted, but this was the article I read on my iphone last week that led to my opinion)

That's PLENTY enough to make a judgment that NFLN RZC is much much worse than DirecTV RZC. It's not continuous football like the DirecTV RZC (except when all games are at halftime), and that alone takes away from the value of NFLN RZC. Yes indeed, as USAToday is the definitive source of information on the planet. Maybe your planet.....

DirecTV RZC is great because you can watch all day and you are always seeing live football action (Except when all games are at the half). NFLN RZC? You'll be "Watching stats" except when a team is in the red zone. Sure they'll switch to that, and I suspect you'll get highlights for those 99 yrd TD's. But otherwise, you'll be watching "Stats" and listening to "Sirius XM." I'm sorry, but that sounds pretty weak IMHO.To each their own. I'd bet there are as many fantasy league viewers who would rather see relevant stats than meaningless plays, or between meaningful plays.

Like I've already said, until we see it, it's way premature to make judgment, but you obviously already have written it off. We'll see just how good your crystal ball is.

I think comcast is the only one carrying this.
Try reading the topic, Dish Network also has carriage at inception.

Yes Master!

Ok, how is anyone supposed to predict when they 99 yard TD play is going to occur?

That one would undoubtedly be a highlight and not live.

They would show it as a highlight, just like DirecTV would do on their channel, and just like CBS and Fox do with their game breaks.

Yep....like duh ken....duh.

Never mind the 99-yarder, what about a touchdown, from say, 22-yards out? Or first play within the RZC area and, fumble or interception? End of coverage (or no coverage), right?

Never mind the 99-yarder, what about a touchdown, from say, 22-yards out?
That will be shown as a highlight, same as any other touchdown play that didn't begin inside the red zone.
Or first play within the RZC area and, fumble or interception? End of coverage (or no coverage), right?
A fumble or interception would definitely end the coverage, unless the ball is returned to the recovering team's red zone.

Obviously everything I'm saying is based on my interpretation of what I've read. I do not have any inside information.

Never mind the 99-yarder, what about a touchdown, from say, 22-yards out? Or first play within the RZC area and, fumble or interception? End of coverage (or no coverage), right?We'll see.

To interpret the little info we have and say if the ball is on the 22 they won't do live coverage, that again seems way premature.

In reference to the DirecTV version, which we know how it works, let's say they are live on a game with the ball inside the 20, and another game not on live the ball is on the 22 and the offensive team scores a TD. You're not going to see all scores live no matter what they do, and you can bet both channels will try and deliver as much live scoring as possible, regardless of where the line of scrimmage is at the start of the play.

...

let's say they are live on a game with the ball inside the 20, and another game not on live the ball is on the 22 and the offensive team scores a TD. You're not going to see all scores live no matter what they do,. ..

Typically when this happens, the DirecTV version will try do a split screen of the two games. So it is possible you can see both live, unless I misinterpret your sentence.

Now in my opinion I believe we will see a "near" clone version of the DirecTV RZC. We know that they are finishing up a studio for this in the same building as the Total Access studio. And we know they are doing a dry run for the host Scott Hanson during the pre-season games right now. I don't think the NFL would go through all that just to show the fans the games that are inside the 20 yard line.

I say "near" clone" because I think the NFL network will muck up the screen with more stats than the DirecTV RZC. But I could be wrong.

Funny. Most sundays i just watch the RZC instead of games. Heck, I'd love the option to only have the RZC for a reduced price instead of having to pay for all of Sunday Ticket.

I used to be with DirecTV and it was Sunday Ticket that kept me there - until I got tired of the Superfan/HD BS that DirecTV tried to pull every year. Back then, RZC was not in HD and it was very haphazard. A friend has Sunday Ticket and I checked it out a couple of times last year. I agree with you. If I could get this on Dish Network, it would fulfill any need I had for ST.

Of course, I am from Detroit, where we do not have a professional team (but we do have the funniest show on turf) and have no rooting interest. I just like to watch the NFL and RZC focuses on the most interesting parts of any game.

Typically when this happens, the DirecTV version will try do a split screen of the two games. So it is possible you can see both live, unless I misinterpret your sentence. Yes, you can see two games live if they do split screen, but when both are Red Zone games, every score from longer yardage will be missed. And those are some of the most interesting plays of a game; the breakaway or bomb.

For the person who wants to only see the scoring plays, as seems to be the interest of at least one member here, D* Game Mix would be a better choice, with it's interactive element.

On NFLN total access tonite during a RZ promo rich eisen specifically said:

"....so when a team goes inside the 20 yard line fans see the crucial plays as they happen."

So again to me this implies that it will only be "live" from the 20 in & the rest will be "not live" highlites.

I'd much rather have the option to get this channel instead of paying $400 for ST. I see all the games for my favorite team already and really just want RZ either the NFL version or the D* version.

1st and 10 at the 18 yd line (red zone coverage), oops holding is called :eek:, 2nd and 25 at the 33yd line ( red zone coverage fades to black):eek:, comes back on a few minutes later showing the extra point. :rolleyes: :D

Two chances of Time-Warner Cable getting RZC...

FAT and NO.

1st and 10 at the 18 yd line (red zone coverage), oops holding is called :eek:, 2nd and 25 at the 33yd line ( red zone coverage fades to black):eek:, comes back on a few minutes later showing the extra point. :rolleyes: :D

If its 1st & 10 at the 18 & then holding....how did it become 2nd & 25 at the 33 ? :D

I'd much rather have the option to get this channel instead of paying $400 for ST. I see all the games for my favorite team already and really just want RZ either the NFL version or the D* version.

Obviously, to each his own. Typically there are one or two games on broadcast TV, so the RZC would be the second or third video for me. I grant that there are plays which occur outside the 20's that are important/interesting. If I had a team out of market I rooted for, RZC would not be enough. Also, if there is a major national game not on local TV, that is an issue. But that's when I will head to a bar with Sunday Ticket.

Obviously, to each his own. Typically there are one or two games on broadcast TV, so the RZC would be the second or third video for me. I grant that there are plays which occur outside the 20's that are important/interesting. If I had a team out of market I rooted for, RZC would not be enough. Also, if there is a major national game not on local TV, that is an issue. But that's when I will head to a bar with Sunday Ticket.

Definitely to each his own. I was hoping NFLN RZC would be like DirecTV RZC, but so far what we have in print from a major newspaper suggests it won't be like that. I too love fantasy football but if I am going to have RZC on all day, I want it to be like DirecTV RZC in which you are constantly watching football except at the halftime of all games when it is all highlights. Either you are seeing a team in the red zone, a highlight of a play that just happened (usually from outside the 20), or the game they are simply leaving it on while no other teams are in the RZ and no highlight plays just happened. It does not look like it will be like that, but we'll see. The reason why this is important is because most of the time I want to be watching live football. Flipping between FOX/CBS and RZC doesn't make sense at all. With this NFLN "Crippled" RZC, if they aren't going to have constant football (i.e., a live game they default to as DirecTV RZC does), I would want it online while my TV can stay on FOX/CBS for a live game.

Considering for comcast this requires signing up for the addt'l sports tier, I too will see what people have to say about it during week 1 and then decide if I want it, but the article's (an article from a major newspaper is much more than nothing) description of it does not sound appealing to me and is not going to appeal to anyone who wants to default to a live NFL game as DirecTV RZC does.

Two chances of Time-Warner Cable getting RZC...

FAT and NO.

Ditto for Cablevision.

If its 1st & 10 at the 18 & then holding....how did it become 2nd & 25 at the 33 ? :D
Maybe the offensive player was holding the defensive player's face mask. :p

1st and 10 at the 18 yd line (red zone coverage), oops holding is called :eek:, 2nd and 25 at the 33yd line ( red zone coverage fades to black):eek:, comes back on a few minutes later showing the extra point. :rolleyes: :D

If its 1st & 10 at the 18 & then holding....how did it become 2nd & 25 at the 33 ? :D

Maybe the offensive player was holding the defensive player's face mask. :p

But then is would still be 1st & 25 from the 33. :D

But then is would still be 1st & 25 from the 33. :D

Holding is only a 10 yard penalty, no loss of down, so it would be 1st and 20 at the 28.

Personal fouls (like face mask grab) are still 15 yards.

Holding is only a 10 yard penalty, no loss of down, so it would be 1st and 20 at the 28.

Personal fouls (like face mask grab) are still 15 yards.

Right but JW was goofing & said a "holding the mask" penalty which is a facemask which is 15 yards. :D

1st and 10 at the 18 yd line (red zone coverage), oops holding is called :eek:, 2nd and 25 at the 33yd line ( red zone coverage fades to black):eek:, comes back on a few minutes later showing the extra point. :rolleyes: :D

It's still a red zone situation. If first down is inside of the 20, then even if it is 3rd and 40 to go, it's still a red zone situation. Either way, all of this talk is a bunch of non sense until the NFL defines how the show will work or we actually see it. My guess is nothing is locked in stone. It isn't like they will not be allowed to make changes to their format as time goes on.

It's still a red zone situation. If first down is inside of the 20, then even if it is 3rd and 40 to go, it's still a red zone situation. Either way, all of this talk is a bunch of non sense until the NFL defines how the show will work or we actually see it. My guess is nothing is locked in stone. It isn't like they will not be allowed to make changes to their format as time goes on.

But they say 'when the ball goes inside the 20'....basically once theres a penalty from the 18 the ball isnt inside the 20 anymore.

If a QB throws an int then from the 23 its not counted as a redzone int.

But they say 'when the ball goes inside the 20'....basically once theres a penalty from the 18 the ball isnt inside the 20 anymore.

If a QB throws an int then from the 23 its not counted as a redzone int.

How do you know they will stop showing it once it backs up? IMHO taking the word of a single article before they have even shown one single week is a bit premature.

How do you know they will stop showing it once it backs up? IMHO taking the word of a single article before they have even shown one single week is a bit premature.

I dont....im just going by what 2 articles said & so did Rich Eisen on a RZC promo as i mentioned here.

I dont....im just going by what 2 articles said & so did Rich Eisen on a RZC promo as i mentioned here.

Here's another perspective, from the NFL:

The (RedZone) channel keeps fans up-to-date in real time, switching from game to game with live look-ins, highlights and a chance to see every important play.

Verizon FIOS also announced today they will carry the SD and HD versions of the channel!

WOOHOO!

Does anyone know whether Comcast will be carrying the HD version of the RedZone channel? I assume that is sufficient bandwidth for the HD version in areas where Comcast has reclaimed bandwidth from analog.

MLB Network does "Live" updates which are great, but they are sometimes minutes after they really happen.

With all the action on Sunday, the RZC would have to do the same.

Here's another perspective, from the NFL:

The (RedZone) channel keeps fans up-to-date in real time, switching from game to game with live look-ins, highlights and a chance to see every important play.

I am surprised that most here are concerned about what will happen when a holding penalty takes the play out of the red zone instead of whether they will default to a game when no one is in the red zone.

Both the USA today article and your NFL quote suggest (by omission) it will not default to a game as DirecTV RZC does. This means for most football fans they will not want to watch NFLN RZC full time because there will be plenty of time on the NFLN RZC channel when there is no football being shown (unless they constantly re-show/loop highlights), and most fans will want to watch a live game and will tune to FOX/CBS instead.

Hopefully someone here will have NFLN RZC for Week 1 and can report to us about how it works, and not just when the play of a game takes it out of the Red Zone, but also about what NFLN RZC defaults to when there are no teams in the red zone.

MLB Network does "Live" updates which are great, but they are sometimes minutes after they really happen.

With all the action on Sunday, the RZC would have to do the same.

Exactly.

I am surprised that most here are concerned about what will happen when a holding penalty takes the play out of the red zone instead of whether they will default to a game when no one is in the red zone.

Both the USA today article and your NFL quote suggest it will not default to a game as DirecTV RZC does. This means for most football fans they will not want to watch NFLN RZC full time because there will be plenty of time on the NFLN RZC channel when there is no football being shown (unless they constantly re-show/loop highlights), and most fans will want to watch a live game and will tune to FOX/CBS instead.

Hopefully someone here will have NFLN RZC for Week 1 and can report to us about how it works, and not just when the play of a game takes it out of the Red Zone, but also about what NFLN RZC defaults to when there are no teams in the red zone.

Do you always get so convinced before you actually know what is going to happen? You're basing quite a bit of angst on something that has never been seen yet, and there are any number of statements than one can read all they want into, one way or the other.

Further, it's more than possible the NFL may come up with a better mouse trap than DirecTV for RedZone; after all they are not exactly neophytes when it comes to their product & media, and they've had years to analyze and critique the DirecTV version. Simply showing dead parts of live games is not necessarily the 'end all be all' for this type of channel. Anyone that really wants to see nothing but segments of live games would care less about NFL RedZone and subscribe to the full Sunday Ticket.

Finally, you can bet it will be a work in progress, meaning, what we see the first weeks may not be what we see as the season progresses. I would expect to see any number of changes as they go along.

To each their own. We shall see.

I live in Massachusetts called Comcast and they are only offering it in SD here I am pretty mad, but this does not surprise me with Comcast.

According to the article on Multichannel, Verizon Fios is charging $49.99 for this:

Positioned on channel 335 in standard definition and 835 in high-definition, NFL RedZone will retail for Verizon for $49.99 for the full 17 weeks of the NFL season, kicking off on Sept. 13.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick to the updates given during the broadcast games on Sunday, highlights shown on the various sports shows during the week and replays on NFL Network -- all of which don't require me to give the NFL any extra money.

According to the article on Multichannel, Verizon Fios is charging $49.99 for this:

Positioned on channel 335 in standard definition and 835 in high-definition, NFL RedZone will retail for Verizon for $49.99 for the full 17 weeks of the NFL season, kicking off on Sept. 13.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick to the updates given during the broadcast games on Sunday, highlights shown on the various sports shows during the week and replays on NFL Network -- all of which don't require me to give the NFL any extra money.

I think the bulk of that $49.99, probably 95%, is going directly into Verizon pockets. Doesn't this channel only cost in the neighborhood of $0.25 to $0.50 per sub/mo, if even that much?

Fifty bucks :eek:

I was hoping this channel was going to be just added to my package like.........The NFL Network

I'm out :)

According to the article on Multichannel, Verizon Fios is charging $49.99 for this:

Positioned on channel 335 in standard definition and 835 in high-definition, NFL RedZone will retail for Verizon for $49.99 for the full 17 weeks of the NFL season, kicking off on Sept. 13.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick to the updates given during the broadcast games on Sunday, highlights shown on the various sports shows during the week and replays on NFL Network -- all of which don't require me to give the NFL any extra money.

+1

Absolute joke

+1

Absolute joke


Especially when you get it w/other sports channels on Dish for 5.99 a month, which comes out to about 25 bucks for the season, and can jump on or off board at any time.

Do you always get so convinced before you actually know what is going to happen? You're basing quite a bit of angst on something that has never been seen yet, and there are any number of statements than one can read all they want into, one way or the other.


Is there ANY statement that suggests that NFLN RZC will default to a live NFL game when there is no team in the red zone? Yup, didn't think so. In fact the statements we've seen suggest otherwise and yeah, it's a bitter point to me. And there has been NOTHING contrary on this particular point.

I love DirecTV RZC. I've gone over to a friends house at 10:00am Pacific just to check it out. It's great because you can leave it on all day and see continuous football: teams in the red zone, highlights if you miss something, and a game it defaults to when there are no teams in the red zone.

Is there some reason you need to bash my posts on this topic? All I've done is provide links to articles and my thoughts, but you belittle them (Even the link to a major newspaper article, which is a ridiculous thing to belittle considering it was not an opinion piece). I am posting a legitimate concern that will affect many NFL fans and their decision to make use of NFLN RZC.

Like I said, let's see how it actually goes week 1 but considering we have an article that says it will default to just showing live stats with Sirius XM's "Around the league" for sound, I'm not holding my breath. But for the record, I hope I am wrong because I would LOVE for NFLN RZC to be just like DirecTV's RZC.

MLB Network does "Live" updates which are great, but they are sometimes minutes after they really happen.

With all the action on Sunday, the RZC would have to do the same.

Yes they do.

Is there ANY statement that suggests that NFLN RZC will default to a live NFL game when there is no team in the red zone?
"The (RedZone) channel keeps fans up-to-date in real time, switching from game to game with live look-ins, highlights and a chance to see every important play."

But for the record, I hope I am wrong because I would LOVE for NFLN RZC to be just like DirecTV's RZC.I can tell you now it will not be.

"The (RedZone) channel keeps fans up-to-date in real time, switching from game to game with live look-ins, highlights and a chance to see every important play."

That still doesnt contradict the "only inside the 20" line.

Like joed says maybe they will show outside the 20....its just that all the adds/promos dont imply they will.

"The (RedZone) channel keeps fans up-to-date in real time, switching from game to game with live look-ins, highlights and a chance to see every important play."


That statement in no way suggests NFLN RZC will default to a game when there is no team in the red zone.

But for the record, I hope I am wrong because I would LOVE for NFLN RZC to be just like DirecTV's RZC.
I can tell you now it will not be.

You are probably right, but only because NFLN RZC will likely not default to game when there is no team in the red zone. Otherwise there will be little difference between DirecTV RZC and NFLN RZC. Both will go the red zone when a team is in the red zone, both will give highlights of scoring that happened outside the 20 (or highlights when several games are in the red zone and they can't show all at the same time) and both will show highlights when all games are at the half. The big (perhaps only) difference would be what happens when no team is in the red zone. DirecTV will default to a game (usually the big game of that time period), while all indications, including articles (i.e., credible sources) suggest that NFLN RZC will default to showing stats set to Sirius XM's "Around the League."

Further, it's more than possible the NFL may come up with a better mouse trap than DirecTV for RedZone; after all they are not exactly neophytes when it comes to their product & media, and they've had years to analyze and critique the DirecTV version. Simply showing dead parts of live games is not necessarily the 'end all be all' for this type of channel. Anyone that really wants to see nothing but segments of live games would care less about NFL RedZone and subscribe to the full Sunday Ticket.

Finally, you can bet it will be a work in progress, meaning, what we see the first weeks may not be what we see as the season progresses. I would expect to see any number of changes as they go along.



I agree that they are not neophytes, but they don't seem to value their content (on NFL-network). I have yet to see any game on there (this pre-season, or last year with the NFL-replays games) that has 5.1 channel audio.
It makes me think NFLN owners are not really big football fans. :mad:

The digital audio really does add a lot to the game, IMHO.

And I would love to see either the NFL version of the RZC, or the D* version, but I have D* and the cost of Sunday Ticket is just too rich for my wallet.

To each his own, as we say.

And I would love to see either the NFL version of the RZC, or the D* version, but I have D* and the cost of Sunday Ticket is just too rich for my wallet.

The rumour is directv will have a free sunday ticket/superfan HD preview week 1.

The rumour is directv will have a free sunday ticket/superfan HD preview week 1.

They've never had a free preview before. But it would be nice if they did.

They've never had a free preview before. But it would be nice if they did.
In the past, they've had a free preview of SuperFan for people who already had ST. But they've never actually had a free preview of ST itself as far as I can remember.

The rumour is directv will have a free sunday ticket/superfan HD preview week 1.

Documentation of this rumor would be simply lovely.
O/W...

The rumour is directv will have a free sunday ticket/superfan HD preview week 1.

Thanks for the info. I hope you are right.

Documentation of this rumor would be simply lovely.
O/W...

Documentation? For a rumor? Well, that just takes all the fun out of it!

Remember the old saying... If you haven't heard any good rumors by noon, its time to start some of your own!
(Okay, it's an old saying where I come from)

Documentation of this rumor would be simply lovely.
O/W...

We usually get freeview superfan.
& as others have said it does sound fishy entire sunday ticket but:

Free Preview for: NFL Sunday Ticket
Available to Subscribers of: DirecTV

Free Preview Begins: September 13, 2009 (Sunday)
Free Preview Ends: September 13, 2009 (Sunday)

http://www.freepreview.tv/nfl-sunday-ticket/directv-free-preview-of-nfl-sunday-ticket.html

Comcast will add the SD channel in Baltimore on 9/13.

Free Preview for: NFL Sunday Ticket
Available to Subscribers of: DirecTV

Free Preview Begins: September 13, 2009 (Sunday)
Free Preview Ends: September 13, 2009 (Sunday)



& just to follow up a poster at dbstalk who is right with info 99% of the time confirmed Sunday Ticket/SuperFan HD both FREE Week 1.

man reading this thread is like a roller coaster - I just found out about red zone channel for comcast - I just gave up directv ST and their famous red zone channel - I thought this comcast deal was the greatest thing ever now I'm not so sure.

I'm hearing no HD for comcast - that sucks bigtime

Also, I'm guessing likely this will have commercials ??

I watched the behind the scenes video on their website - it looks like more than the old sirius style channel - my hope is that its close to the directv version

anyway I signed up for the $8/mo to get it on comcast - if it sucks so be it, I can always cancel and watch "regular" broadcasts - I'm a NFL junkie I guess

I'm hearing no HD for comcast - that sucks bigtime

Also, I'm guessing likely this will have commercials ??
Cable is different in every location, but if you have Comcast then NFL Redzone should be available in HD. And it will not have commercials.

man reading this thread is like a roller coaster - I just found out about red zone channel for comcast - I just gave up directv ST and their famous red zone channel - I thought this comcast deal was the greatest thing ever now I'm not so sure.

I'm hearing no HD for comcast - that sucks bigtime

Also, I'm guessing likely this will have commercials ??

I watched the behind the scenes video on their website - it looks like more than the old sirius style channel - my hope is that its close to the directv version

anyway I signed up for the $8/mo to get it on comcast - if it sucks so be it, I can always cancel and watch "regular" broadcasts - I'm a NFL junkie I guess

We'll all know come Sunday, til then we're guessing.

& just to follow up a poster at dbstalk who is right with info 99% of the time confirmed Sunday Ticket/SuperFan HD both FREE Week 1.

This should be discussed in a NFL ST topic.

Cable is different in every location, but if you have Comcast then NFL Redzone should be available in HD. And it will not have commercials.

Depends on what Comcast system your on. From what I have heard Comcast in Michigan will be doing SD only.

This should be discussed in a NFL ST topic.

The reason i posted it is because someone posted here that they would like to see Directvs version of RZC but they dont get ST....so i was saying that they have a chance to do that with this freeview.

Depends on what Comcast system your on. From what I have heard Comcast in Michigan will be doing SD only.

That's what I expect it to be here in the SF bay area as well, in fact, has Comcast even indicated they'd be carrying the channel in HD anywhere?

Blue Ridge Communications made a deal to carry NFL RedZone HD on its systems in eastern PA. http://twitter.com/BlueRidgeTV

http://www.multichannel.com/article/340269-Blue_Ridge_Enters_NFL_RedZone.php

It's on their...
"HD Plus tier, which currently includes HD Net Movies, Palladia HD, Universal HD, MGM HD, Smithsonian HD and National Geographic HD, for $12.95 month"

http://www.multichannel.com/article/340269-Blue_Ridge_Enters_NFL_RedZone.php

It's on their...
"HD Plus tier, which currently includes HD Net Movies, Palladia HD, Universal HD, MGM HD, Smithsonian HD and National Geographic HD, for $12.95 month"

Their who?

Their who?

That would be Blue Ridge Cable.

yeah - I would pay extra for the HD version - I see only the SD version in my comcast guide - shows white screen with Redzone "sunday afternoons at 1Pm live on this channel" channel 287 in boston area

My only hope is that NFL network simulacasts it week 1 to hype the channel - then I would get HD for week 1 at least........

I am not paying extra for this. I hope it fizzles and it's added to packages that already have NFL Network, how much MORE money does the frickin NFL need! Hopefully there will be alot of local blackouts as well and Goodie Goodie will realize ticket prices are out of control.

I have Blue Ridge and I'm not going to pay extra for it. There's enough in-game highlights for me to know what's going on.

RCN has just added it in all markets, also at $49.99.

My only hope is that NFL network simulacasts it week 1 to hype the channel

No way jose.

AT&T Uverse added it to the $5 per month HD Premium tier.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS162093+11-Sep-2009+PRN20090911

RCN has just added it in all markets, also at $49.99.

Crooks.

I am not paying extra for this. I hope it fizzles and it's added to packages that already have NFL Network, how much MORE money does the frickin NFL need! Hopefully there will be alot of local blackouts as well and Goodie Goodie will realize ticket prices are out of control.

I am with you on this I heard him on the radio the other day and he is just so out of touch it truly amazed me.

Comcast has added the SD channel in Baltimore, or at least it's in the guide.

Crooks.

Verizon is charging the $49.99 as well. I'm curious how it is that some carriers just add it to an existing package(includes other channels) that costs around $5 per month and yet others charge what seems like an amount that would discourage even bothering with it. That's a huge disparity in pricing. Since Verizon and RCN appear to have added it as a stand alone channel, and presumably the NFL only gets paid by the amount of subscribers that receive the channel, one could imagine the NFL being somewhat at odds with the pricing. It's almost as if those carriers are poking a stick in the NFL's eye over even having the channel as a stand alone channel and not integrating it into the NFL channel itself. Sure, we'll carry the channel, but good luck getting a lot of per sub fees at the price we're charging for it.

The HD channel is in the Comcast guide in Baltimore.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=152442&d=1252751080

Personally, there is nothing wrong with the $50 fee. I forked it over to Verizon. People spend $60 on a 3-hour UFC fight, but $50 for an entire season of a channel is robbery?

C'mon now people...

Personally, there is nothing wrong with the $50 fee. I forked it over to Verizon. People spend $60 on a 3-hour UFC fight, but $50 for an entire season of a channel is robbery?

C'mon now people...

The problem seems that it isnt $50 for everyone.

Some get it free if they have the sports tier & some get it for $25.

The problem seems that it isnt $50 for everyone.

Some get it free if they have the sports tier & some get it for $25.

The issue is if they put it on a sports tier, the cable company/dish network have to pay for every subscriber to that tier. Doing it this way, the only people that are charged are the one's who want the channel. I don't think it is right to do it this way, but it's easy to see why they are doing it.

The issue is if they put it on a sports tier, the cable company/dish network have to pay for every subscriber to that tier. Doing it this way, the only people that are charged are the one's who want the channel. I don't think it is right to do it this way, but it's easy to see why they are doing it.

That still doesn't explain the huge variation in price, they could run the channel stand alone and charge only $0.01 if they wanted to.

Does this channel run all the way through the playoffs, or is it only for the 17 weeks of the regular season? That might explain the pricing a little bit better, although it would still be only $25 total cost via Comcast's Sports package as opposed to twice that from those other carriers.

Charge what ever you think you can get I suppose. :D

As for NFL RedZone, NFL Network has secured distribution for the ad hoc service via overall renewal deals (Comcast, Dish and RCN), as well as by inking add-on pacts with others like AT&T, FiOS and Blue Ridge Communications.

Service Electric, Buckeye Cable, Nex-Tech, Mid-Tel Cable and Dakota Central Telecom, at press time, had also signed up to present NFL RedZone during the 2009 season. Others are expected to join the distribution lineup.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/353657-Bornstein_Time_Warner_Cable_Notable_By_Its_Exception_From_NF L_Network_Lineup.php

After reading that article I think I understand those $49.99 prices from Verizon and RCN. If the channel is placed on a tier with a expected number of subs then the carrier will get the channel for the $.25 per sub or what ever it costs. If it's a stand alone offering by the carrier, meaning there could be only 10 subs, or there might be 100,000 subs, then the NFL wants a considerably larger amount per sub, a sort of ala carte offering. That's my take on it anyway.

i'm excited to see it tomorrow!

That still doesn't explain the huge variation in price, they could run the channel stand alone and charge only $0.01 if they wanted to.


Yes, but you can bet the cable companies are going to be saying, "here is our version of NFL Sunday Ticket!" (although they surely will not use those exact words). So of course they will charge a premium for it.

Does this channel run all the way through the playoffs, or is it only for the 17 weeks of the regular season? That might explain the pricing a little bit better, although it would still be only $25 total cost via Comcast's Sports package as opposed to twice that from those other carriers.
No games are played concurrently during the playoffs.

No games are played concurrently during the playoffs.

Right, I didn't have my thinking cap on, it's 17 weeks only, which makes it quite a bit of money for those with Verizon and/or RCN.

Yep. As a FiOS sub, I won't be subscribing. To even consider it, the cost would have to come down to the $20 range, and even that's probably too much.

Yes, but you can bet the cable companies are going to be saying, "here is our version of NFL Sunday Ticket!" (although they surely will not use those exact words). So of course they will charge a premium for it.Not really. The largest cableco, Comcast, is including it in their Sports & Entertainment Package, which includes (in my area) 16 other channels. If you're an NFL fan, you already subbed to this package to get NFL Network, so it doesn't cost you anything more.

Not really. The largest cableco, Comcast, is including it in their Sports & Entertainment Package, which includes (in my area) 16 other channels. If you're an NFL fan, you already subbed to this package to get NFL Network, so it doesn't cost you anything more.

I thought the NFLN was no longer on the sports package on Comcast?

I thought the NFLN was no longer on the sports package on Comcast?

Actually it is an either/or. Those who get Digital Classic but NOT SnE now get NFL.

Those who get SnE but NOT Classic still get NFL and now NFL Red Zone.

It doesn't look like I'm going to have a chance to purchase the HD version of this channel in Evanston, IL. Oh well, Comcast missed a chance to take a little more of my money.

Very suprising to see so many Comcast markets not have this in HD. I figured it would be system wide but i see Baltimore has it. Very frustrating.

Comcast Tallahassee has the NFL RedZone Channel ready to roll on Channel 741 in the Sports Tier. No sign of the HD version anywhere.

Good, maybe demand will be low and it will be added into packages that already receive NFL Network at no additional cost!

Good, maybe demand will be low and it will be added into packages that already receive NFL Network at no additional cost!

This "statement" does not compute.

Comcast, Other Affiliates Kick Off NFL RedZone Channel 'Free-view'

Carriers Will Present Look-In At NFL Network's Scoring Channel This Sunday

Mike Reynolds -- Multichannel News, 9/28/2009 4:11:59 PM EDT

NFL Network is working with its affiliates to make its RedZone channel available for a free preview during the fourth week of the pro football league's season.

NFL RedZone, which provides viewers with a look at every touchdown from every Sunday afternoon game, as well as live look-ins and real-time highlights, will be available for a "free-view" on Oct. 4.

Officials at NFL Network, which administers the channel and kicked off its rookie season on Sept. 13, said all NFL RedZone affiliated have the ability to offer the service on Sunday as a means to spur sampling and drive purchase.

For its part, Comcast, which positions NFL RedZone on its sports tier, will offer the free-view to all of its digital-cable customers during the early-window games from 1 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. on Oct. 4.

"The verdict is in...sports fans are calling NFL RedZone a ‘must-have,'" said Derek Harrar, general manager and senior vice president of video services for Comcast, in announcing the MSO's promotional play. "Since the debut was an instant hit, we're opening up the channel to all our digital customers so they can experience the intense live action only available on NFL RedZone."

Other NFL RedZone carriers include: Dish Network, Verizon's FiOS, AT&T' U-verse, RCN Corp., Blue Ridge Communications, Service Electric, Buckeye Cable, Nex-Tech, Mid-Tel Cable and Dakota Central Telecom.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/355658-Comcast_Other_Affiliates_Kick_Off_NFL_RedZone_Channel_Free_v iew_.php

I am a Dish subscriber. Used to be with DirecTV, but decided to switch for a few reasons. The one thing I missed was the Sunday Ticket. It cost a lot, but I really enjoyed being able to tune in any game that was interesting or important.

For $5.99 per month, the RedZone Channel more than meets my NFL viewing needs. They kept jumping around to key moments in every game. As time wound down, they kept focused on games that were still in doubt. This kept programming focused and watchable. The 4pm games were even easier and more watchable as there are fewer games.

Yesterday, I watched RZC non-stop. Most of the time, I expect to watch in my home theater, where I have multiple video screens. There I can watch one or two full games (depending on local broadcast) as well as RZC. Overall, I think this will be the best way to watch football. Even when I had Sunday Ticket, I realistically could only follow a couple or three games at a time.

I completely understand that if someone is a fan of an out of area team, RZC is not going to cut it. But if you are like me, and have no particular rooting interest, the RZC is an excellent addition to the NFL football spectating world.

The fangbites guy does a compare between Directvs RZC & NFLNs RZC.
He likes both:
Directv RZC = A, NFLN RZC = B

Comparing the Red Zone Channels Side-By-Side

On Sunday, I had the opportunity to watch both DirecTV's Red Zone Channel and NFL Network's RedZone simultaneously. As a subscriber of DirecTV, I get the Red Zone as part of the satellite service's NFL Sunday Ticket Superfan package. And I can also watch it online as I still don't have a TV, but that's besides the point.

If you're a regular reader of Fang's Bites, then you'll know how much I enjoy watching DirecTV's Red Zone.

This weekend, the NFL provided me with access to a special website to watch NFL Network's RedZone and I was able to use two computers, one to watch DirecTV and the other to watch NFL Network.

I decided to watch the 1 p.m. ET games to compare coverage from the two channels. Andrew Siciliano hosts DirecTV's Red Zone. Scott Hanson is the host for NFL Network. NFL Network's version has been on the air two weeks compared to DirecTV which is into its fourth season.

The purpose of both channels is to show scoring plays and if a team has a legitimate scoring opportunity, reaching inside the opponent's 20 yard line, they'll cut in live to either the CBS or Fox broadcast.

As far as content was concerned, both virtually carried the same games at the same time. There were some instances when DirecTV was focused on game, NFL Network was showing another, but for the most part, both channels were showing action from the same game. For example, both channels started with Titans-Jets and Washington-Detroit, switching between both games. I thought for a moment that perhaps the only difference was the hosts, but eventually, I did see different games at the same time.

When there were simultaneous scoring opportunities, both channels went to double boxes, but DirecTV stayed with the double box while NFL Network would go full-screen to whichever game snapped the ball first. And NFL Network would wipe in between the two games. I'm not a fan of the double box even in high definition so wiping full screen between two games is better in my opinion.

Both channels do a good job in finding live action. When one games goes to break, DirecTV does have highlights at the ready to fire.

NFL Network does do a good job in updating scores as games go final. That's one thing DirecTV does not do well. However, in the waning seconds of the 49ers-Vikings game that was won on Brett Favre's last second TD pass to Greg Lewis, I felt DirecTV did the better job in following up as the touchdown was reviewed. It aired the referee's review live. NFL Network only mentioned in passing that the ruling on the field stood.

I also prefer Andrew Siciliano's hosting style to Scott Hanson who is rather dry in my opinion. Andrew has humor and is snarky, plus he always has a comment on referee Ed Hochuli's guns. Sure, Scott has only been on officially for three weeks so he hasn't developed a true style as of yet. However, Andrew knows every player on sight and is very good in transitioning from one game to another. And if something goes wrong, which can happen in 6 hours of live TV, he's able to laugh it off or give us a humorous aside.

To be honest, a true fan of the NFL should get the Red Zone. For fantasy players and for anyone who wants to see every scoring play, it's really the way to watch every week. Plus it has rendered the highlights shows obsolete as you have already seen the major highlights. If I had to grade the channels, DirecTV's Red Zone Channel gets an A. It has had the head start by three years plus Andrew Siciliano is a good fit.

NFL Network's RedZone, available to those who don't have access to DirecTV, gets a B. Very solid for a production that's been on for just three weeks. Subscribers to Verizon FiOS, Comcast, Dish Network, AT&T U-Verse and RCN will get a free preview this Sunday between 1 and 4 p.m. so watch it if you have the opportunity. The channel is currently unavailable to Time Warner at this time.

http://www.fangsbites.com/2009/09/comparing-red-zone-channels-side-by.html

For its part, Comcast, which positions NFL RedZone on its sports tier, will offer the free-view to all of its digital-cable customers during the early-window games from 1 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. on Oct. 4.


Not the whole day but only for the early games, that seems like that could cause problems.

Not the whole day but only for the early games, that seems like that could cause problems.

I don't understand this, we have been getting the NFL Redzone channel every week so far, and we do not subscribe to the sports tier. Have they just made a mistake here in Harford County Maryland?

I don't understand this, we have been getting the NFL Redzone channel every week so far, and we do not subscribe to the sports tier. Have they just made a mistake here in Harford County Maryland?

ssssshhhhhh.....

I don't understand this, we have been getting the NFL Redzone channel every week so far, and we do not subscribe to the sports tier. Have they just made a mistake here in Harford County Maryland?

Don't advertise it. It must be a mistake. I'm in Baltimore County, MD, and when I tried to tune in, after reading your previous post, it said "Not Authorized" and gave me ordering information.

No such luck in Baltimore City. Hope they fix that mistake soon in Harford County!:D

I just wanted to say your review of both services was excellent. While I do not have the opportunity to watch both simulteneously, I have seen enough of the DirecTV's version to agree with much of what your are saying. While his ears are disturbing in HD :D, Siciliano's style is more relaxed and engaging than Hanson's. The total production just seems a little more crisp on DirecTV than the NFL Network. No doubt having a few years of experience is an advantage. I remember the early days of DirecTV's RZC and it was almost unwatchable (and not in HD).

My expectations were that the NFL RZC was going to be a bit rough. It was actually better and smoother than I expected. Overall, the important thing is showing key plays in as close to real time as possible and I thought they did a good job of that.

Thanks for your review!

I just wanted to say your review of both services was excellent. While I do not have the opportunity to watch both simulteneously, I have seen enough of the DirecTV's version to agree with much of what your are saying. While his ears are disturbing in HD :D, Siciliano's style is more relaxed and engaging than Hanson's. The total production just seems a little more crisp on DirecTV than the NFL Network. No doubt having a few years of experience is an advantage. I remember the early days of DirecTV's RZC and it was almost unwatchable (and not in HD).

My expectations were that the NFL RZC was going to be a bit rough. It was actually better and smoother than I expected. Overall, the important thing is showing key plays in as close to real time as possible and I thought they did a good job of that.

Thanks for your review!
He posted a review from another person. It was a good review though. And just to think people were bashing it and saying it wasn't worth it before it even came out. Of course that's all personal opinion.

He posted a review from another person. It was a good review though. And just to think people were bashing it and saying it wasn't worth it before it even came out. Of course that's all personal opinion.
More like ignorance than opinion.

Isn't one NFL game at a time enough sleep inducement for folks? :)

Isn't one NFL game at a time enough sleep inducement for folks? :)

Maybe for you, but for about 50 million or more, not so much.... :rolleyes:

Isn't one NFL game at a time enough sleep inducement for folks? :)

Only because of the constant stoppages and commercials. Red Zone makes that problem go away.

Maybe for you, but for about 50 million or more, not so much.... :rolleyes:

Oh I know, just carrying on a little with the folks who want to see every play of every game.

No such luck in Baltimore City. Hope they fix that mistake soon in Harford County!:D

Very funny! :) I kind of suspect after they finish that free preview this weekend for the rest of you, we will be in the queue to lose access too. I have no problem getting the sports tier for the RZ though, it is quickly becoming indispensable!

Does anyone, other than DISH, carry the RZ? Is it tied in with the NFL Network?

Does anyone, other than DISH, carry the RZ? Is it tied in with the NFL Network?

Comcast has it....

Does anyone, other than DISH, carry the RZ?

Comcast, Dish Network, Verizon's FiOS, AT&T U-verse, RCN Corp., Blue Ridge Communications, Service Electric, Buckeye Cable, Nex-Tech, Mid-Tel Cable and Dakota Central Telecom.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=17261766&postcount=225

Is this channel active on any day but Sunday, or is it just dead-air?

Is this channel active on any day but Sunday, or is it just dead-air?

Only Sunday during the 1pm and 4pm Eastern games otherwise it's off.

Only Sunday during the 1pm and 4pm Eastern games otherwise it's off.

Thanks.

More Comcast areas are going to get RedZone in HD.

Only Sunday during the 1pm and 4pm Eastern games otherwise it's off.

Small correction. It is on from 1pm - appx 7:30pm - when the last 4pm game concludes.

Small correction. It is on from 1pm - appx 7:30pm - when the last 4pm game concludes.

That's what he said.

More Comcast areas are going to get RedZone in HD.

Will it be during this season? Also what areas would get it? I hope Houston is on the list.