You see, I actually enjoy INHD ...
Since I switched to DISH, there is not much I have missed about TWC except INHD.
I remember watching it a lot, but that could be because the limited TWC HD offerings. I know I watched all the MMA fights but can't remember what else it had.
I'll find out soon enough though since DISH just uplinked INHD and FOOD-HD. :D

... I don't think so. TWC doesn't think so. ...
Is your real name "Tim Warner"?
It would explain a lot. :D

Is your real name "Tim Warner"?
It would explain a lot. :D

Good morning.

Maybe I should change my screen name from "posg" to "tim warner"???? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Since I switched to DISH, there is not much I have missed about TWC except INHD.
I remember watching it a lot, but that could be because the limited TWC HD offerings. I know I watched all the MMA fights but can't remember what else it had.
I'll find out soon enough though since DISH just uplinked INHD and FOOD-HD. :D

INHD has MLB, NBA, NHL. Actually a better sports channel than ESPN2 !!!

Good morning.

Maybe I should change my screen name from "posg" to "tim warner"???? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


I was thinkin that "posg" stood for "point of sale guy". ;)

You see, I actually enjoy INHD and especially HDNet Movies. I watch HDNet Movies much more than HBO. I'll admit that Universal HD isn't much in it's present form, but given it's relatively small distribution at this point, NBC has to withhold "A" product.

ESPN1 is a part time HD channel at best. I bet less than half of it's programming is in HD. Why couldn't they put ALL the HD content on one channel??? Because they know that all they have to do is put a spoonful of HD programming on a seperate channel, and they can play the "you Mr. Cable operator HAVE to carry it because your satellite competitor does" game. I don't buy into that game. Neither does Time Warner.

The issue is apparently this:

TWC has a license agreement to carry ESPN2 on BASIC. The agreement allows them to carry ESPN2HD for no additional charge, but only if there is no additional charge to the subscriber. There's the catch. Because they need to put it in a digital tier which cost the subscriber extra, ESPN2HD suddenly costs $2/month.

That is why DirecTV charges $9.95 for it's HD tier, while TWC only charges $6.95.

The question is this. Is ESPN2HD in it's current configuration worth $3/month??? I don't think so. TWC doesn't think so. Do you?

If they have an agreement to carry ESPN2HD at no additional charge, why can't they just put it in the HD Suite ($6.95/mo) and keep the rate the same? Just like they did with Universal-HD. If it doesn't cost TWC anything, what is the problem?

If they have an agreement to carry ESPN2HD at no additional charge, why can't they just put it in the HD Suite ($6.95/mo) and keep the rate the same? Just like they did with Universal-HD. If it doesn't cost TWC anything, what is the problem?

Go back and read my post again and you'll find the answer. :mad:

I was thinkin that "posg" stood for "point of sale guy". ;)

No, it's the acronym for the very unflattering nickname given to me as a pledge at a fraternity in college many years ago. It just kinda stuck. :o :o :o

INHD has MLB, NBA, NHL. Actually a better sports channel than ESPN2 !!!
Not for a NFL, College Basketball, and College Football fan. The 3 you named play too many games in my book for them to mean anything. I catch the highlights on SportsCenter and sometimes that's too much. :(

If they have an agreement to carry ESPN2HD at no additional charge, why can't they just put it in the HD Suite ($6.95/mo) and keep the rate the same? Just like they did with Universal-HD. If it doesn't cost TWC anything, what is the problem?

He's saying that if TWC wants to charge extra (beyond basic) for ESPN2HD - even if that extra charge is a tier cost - the rate jumps to $2. That $6.95 cost is the problem and it doesn't matter if they are adding ESPN2 without raising the $6.95 fee.

Go back and read my post again and you'll find the answer. :mad:

Here's your quote ... "TWC has a license agreement to carry ESPN2 on BASIC. The agreement allows them to carry ESPN2HD for no additional charge, but only if there is no additional charge to the subscriber."

Again, I ask ... if TWC has an agreement to carry ESPN2HD at no additional charge, but only if there is no additional charge to the subscriber-- IF IT DOESN'T COST THEM ANY EXTRA, WHY WOULD THEY WANT/NEED TO CHARGE THEIR SUBSCRIBERS?

Sorry if I'm dense about this, but I'm just responding to your riddle. I give up ... any reference to the NFL Network and ESPN2HD to you is just attacked. I'll just let the others correctly continue to expose TWC. It's enjoyable (but frustrating, knowing that TWC doesn't give a crap) reading.

See my post just before yours.

He's saying that if TWC wants to charge extra (beyond basic) for ESPN2HD - even if that extra charge is a tier cost - the rate jumps to $2. That $6.95 cost is the problem and it doesn't matter if they are adding ESPN2 without raising the $6.95 fee.

Exactly. Just like the NFLN situation, if you dig a little deeper, you get a better understanding of the different postions. The rheotoric from ESPN is that they have offered ESPN2HD to TWC for free, when in reality, TWC would have to put it in Clear QAM to qualify for "free", and maybe even that would have a "gotcha".

See my post just before yours.

So, I'm assuming that ABC/Disney is not allowing it (ESPNHD or ESPN2HD) to be on basic (a la TNT-HD, Discovery HD, etc.)? So, they are "forcing" TWC to put it in their HD Suite, AND charge $2/sub for it? If that's the case, I guess I can see (but not agree with) TWC's reluctance. Other cable providers (most recently, Comcast) have added ESPN2HD and not raised their HD suite cost, why can't TWC?

If what he's saying is true, even if they wanted to give it away, just the cost of upgrading to digital cable would cause the $2 to kick in. The only solution would be to offer ESPN2HD on the analog basic tier, and that's not going to happen.

That seems ridiculously high, even by ESPN standards.

ESPN may market to sports fans, but that doesn't mean all sports fans tune in. The stats show that only 1 in 6 regularly watch ESPN. And likewise, while Lifetime markets to women, that doesn't make them a more popular channel. The niche is those women that like Lifetime's programming, which is much smaller than those that are interested in NFL football. After all, the NFL is marketed to men and women - that's a huge niche.

Agreed. I rarely watch ESPN anytime from March to August, because frankly, I don't give a hoot about sports other than football. If I want to follow another sports story (The cheater...er, Bonds' chase of Ruth), that is what the morning paper and internet is for.

IMHO, TWC and NFL are both being greedy, but I side with the NFL. It's a moot point because I'm a D* and NFL ST subscriber, and would rather go simply OTA before paying TWC a dime.

Here's your quote ... "TWC has a license agreement to carry ESPN2 on BASIC. The agreement allows them to carry ESPN2HD for no additional charge, but only if there is no additional charge to the subscriber."

Again, I ask ... if TWC has an agreement to carry ESPN2HD at no additional charge, but only if there is no additional charge to the subscriber-- IF IT DOESN'T COST THEM ANY EXTRA, WHY WOULD THEY WANT/NEED TO CHARGE THEIR SUBSCRIBERS?

Sorry if I'm dense about this, but I'm just responding to your riddle. I give up ... any reference to the NFL Network and ESPN2HD to you is just attacked. I'll just let the others correctly continue to expose TWC. It's enjoyable (but frustrating, knowing that TWC doesn't give a crap) reading.

Many years ago, I worked a cable system that carried HBO. Our contract required a 50/50 split on any costs to the subscriber associated with receiving HBO, including, but not limited to installation fees, box rental, etc.

We rented converter boxes for $3.00 month. You needed a box to receive HBO. But we also used the box to descramble several other channels. But if the subscriber chose HBO as one of those channels, HBO got HALF of the box rental.

We thought this unfair, so we charged $3.00 more for HBO than the other premium services to offset the $1.50 we already paid them for their half of the box rental and they got half of that $3.00, so we actually netted $0 from the additional $3.00.

The cable system in the town next to us used traps rather than boxes to control access to HBO, so they didn't have all the additional charges and charged $3.00 less. So we were "gouging" our subscribers.

The box was at that time a better technology than traps, allowed us to offer many more premium channels, but costed more to deploy, and we got penalized for using it.

The point is that there's alway more there than appears on the surface.

If what he's saying is true, even if they wanted to give it away, just the cost of upgrading to digital cable would cause the $2 to kick in. The only solution would be to offer ESPN2HD on the analog basic tier, and that's not going to happen.

That seems ridiculously high, even by ESPN standards.

ESPN has standards??? :mad:

The point is that there's alway more there than appears on the surface.

I appreciate the interesting albeit completely unrelated vinette, but is that supposed to be an excuse for TWC's inability to strike carriage agreements for highly requested channels? Funny ... other providers (satellite AND cable) don't seem to have the same problems. I am so sick of hearing excuses. Just get it done.

I appreciate the interesting albeit completely unrelated vinette, but is that supposed to be an excuse for TWC's inability to strike carriage agreements for highly requested channels? Funny ... other providers (satellite AND cable) don't seem to have the same problems. I am so sick of hearing excuses. Just get it done.

I just thought maybe we needed a break from the discussion, and perhaps some insight on just how unreasonable these deals can be.

There are probably two people that have control over this entire situation, one at Time Warner, and one at NFL Networks. Everybody else is merely a victim.

The local TWC office has absolutely nothing to say about this and are probably as pissed (maybe more) at their corporate office as you are.

Last numbers I read indicated that NFLN was available in 41,000,000 households out of some 90,000,000 cable/sat households. 27,000,000 of those are satellite households. That means only about half of the cable households have NFLN, and fewer with NFLNHD.

This is not JUST a Time Warner issue. They are just the biggest holdout so they catch all the press.

Your friend,
Tim Warner

P. S.

And it's not poor Fred Dressler.

And it's not poor Fred Dressler.

I don't think Fred can be described in any way as being "poor" and my sympathy for him is zero.

I don't think Fred can be described in any way as being "poor" and my sympathy for him is zero.

There are two jobs everyone in the world needs to have at least once in their life. They need to be a waiter or waitress, and they need to be a Marketing Director for either a local or corporate cable office.

You will always leave a decent tip, and you will stop whining about your cable service.

I can empathize with Fred.

I can empathize with Fred.

Lets' see ... Fred probably sits in his big office, makes a good 6 figure salary without blinking, and answers a couple of customer emails a day from those who managed to track his email address down. Which of course he is not obligated to respond to.

Meanwhile over at customer service, you have minimum wage workers, dropped in a cube fielding calls from every angry customer with a telephone whether they are in any position to help or not.

And you can pretty much guarantee that when TWC blanked out the NFL last week Fred wasn't the first port of call for annoyed customers.

Yep, Fred has it rough. Anyway, moving on ...

There are two jobs everyone in the world needs to have at least once in their life. They need to be a waiter or waitress, and they need to be a Marketing Director for either a local or corporate cable office.

You will always leave a decent tip, and you will stop whining about your cable service.

I can empathize with Fred.

My attitude towards both of those professions would actually be based on the same question.

"What have you done for me lately?"

The answer to that question will dictate my actions.

Lets' see ... Fred probably sits in his big office, makes a good 6 figure salary without blinking, and answers a couple of customer emails a day from those who managed to track his email address down. Which of course he is not obligated to respond to.

Meanwhile over at customer service, you have minimum wage workers, dropped in a cube fielding calls from every angry customer with a telephone whether they are in any position to help or not.

And you can pretty much guarantee that when TWC blanked out the NFL last week Fred wasn't the first port of call for annoyed customers.

Yep, Fred has it rough. Anyway, moving on ...

You couldn't be further from the truth.

My attitude towards both of those professions would actually be based on the same question.

"What have you done for me lately?"

The answer to that question will dictate my actions.

Very sad.....

Whats sad about it? Good service demands good rewards and/or high praise.

My attitude towards both of those professions would actually be based on the same question.

"What have you done for me lately?"

The answer to that question will dictate my actions.

I agree completely. In some organization, not all, how you're judged is probably 90%, "What have you done for me lately?" and 10% something else.

Whats sad about it? Good service demands good rewards and/or high praise.

If I do business with a person, and that person is reasonably priced, provides consistanly dependable support, and works hard to earn my trust, I'm not going to turn my back on him just because someone I don't know undercuts him a little.

The "what have you done for me lately" is devoid of loyalty and trust. It wreaks of selfishness and displays a short term perspective.

I guess I am just old fashioned when it comes to trust and loyalty.

If I do business with a person, and that person is reasonably priced, provides consistanly dependable support, and works hard to earn my trust, I'm not going to turn my back on him just because someone I don't know undercuts him a little.

The "what have you done for me lately" is devoid of loyalty and trust. It wreaks of selfishness and displays a short term perspective.

I guess I am just old fashioned when it comes to trust and loyalty.

This may surprise you, posg, but I agree completely with you on this one.

It seems to me that people have to take the totality of a business relationship into account. And favors granted in the past too often are overlooked.

Any business that feels it can count on the"what have you done for me lately" folks is doomed to failure.

"What have you done for me consistently" works far better as a business model, both for the company and its customers.

There is a slightly different perspective when comparing to other retail/service businesses. Our TV service provider is our portal to all available programming out there. Even if they maintain a high level of service, and have never "screwed us over", restricting our access to available programming can be considered a failure of service.

It isn't a "what have you done for me lately" attitude to expect access to the different networks as they become available - that would be considered maintaining the same level of service. That's the price they pay to be considered the sole provider of television service.

This may surprise you, posg, but I agree completely with you on this one.

It seems to me that people have to take the totality of a business relationship into account. And favors granted in the past too often are overlooked.

Any business that feels it can count on the"what have you done for me lately" folks is doomed to failure.

"What have you done for me consistently" works far better as a business model, both for the company and its customers.

Thanks Fredfa. But it doesn't surprise me that we agree. While we don't always share the same position, I think you, like myself, come to conclusions based on careful analysis rather than pure emotion. At least I try to.

There is a slightly different perspective when comparing to other retail/service businesses. Our TV service provider is our portal to all available programming out there. Even if they maintain a high level of service, and have never "screwed us over", restricting our access to available programming can be considered a failure of service.

It isn't a "what have you done for me lately" attitude to expect access to the different networks as they become available - that would be considered maintaining the same level of service. That's the price they pay to be considered the sole provider of television service.

I bet Time Warner is sure glad they don't have to compete with DirecTV and Dish Network for TV customers and Bell South for phone and internet customers.

It sure must be great to be a monopoly and have ALL the business, because that way you can be a complete failure and get all the business anyway. JEESH !!!

You went from this:

I think you, like myself, come to conclusions based on careful analysis rather than pure emotion.

to this:
I bet Time Warner is sure glad they don't have to compete with DirecTV and Dish Network for TV customers and Bell South for phone and internet customers.

It sure must be great to be a monopoly and have ALL the business, because that way you can be a complete failure and get all the business anyway. JEESH !!!


What the heck are you talking about, and what does it have to do with the quote you posted? Sounds like pure emotion that has nothing to do with what I said - which wasn't even critical of TWC so I'm not sure why you're so defensive.

You couldn't be further from the truth.

there's that truth thing again ... okay prove it. Show me what level of customer response Fred Dressler has fielded over the past week in comparison to how many phone calls TWC customer service received. TWC received 7000 complaints, how many of those were to Fred Dressler?

And I don't mean inter-corporate meetings, negotiations and exchanges. That's what he's paid the big bucks for.

I bet Time Warner is sure glad they don't have to compete with DirecTV and Dish Network for TV customers and Bell South for phone and internet customers.


TWC should be happy they don't have to compete with any other cable service, since the competitiors offer all the same services and more channels at lower price points. They are also extremely lucky they don't have to compete with FiOS in the majority of markets either.

Maybe if they did they would be more enthusiastic about upgrading services to compete. Rather than being happy to sit back and do nothing, knowing that most areas don't have a cable alternative.

Those new Adelphia customers of Comcast don't seem to be having such a difficult time.

You went from this:



to this:



What the heck are you talking about, and what does it have to do with the quote you posted? Sounds like pure emotion that has nothing to do with what I said - which wasn't even critical of TWC so I'm not sure why you're so defensive.

Perhaps maybe a little sarcasm ????? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Perhaps maybe a little sarcasm ????? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

There was no sarcasm intended on my end. What I said applies to all service providers, but your defensiveness is extremely telling.

If I do business with a person, and that person is reasonably priced, provides consistanly dependable support, and works hard to earn my trust, I'm not going to turn my back on him just because someone I don't know undercuts him a little.

I gave TWC more than ample time to to reach par with Knology on services provided. TO THIS DAY they lag beyond belief in services and the price that they require for that poor service

The "what have you done for me lately" is devoid of loyalty and trust. It wreaks of selfishness and displays a short term perspective.

I guess I am just old fashioned when it comes to trust and loyalty.

If i was still with TWC, id still be waiting and paying more, instead of enjoying FOX-HD, ESPN2-HD, and the NFLN

TWC must be going nuts. In this story about them signing up the new Dodgers TV channel:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodtv10aug10,1,3815974.story?coll=la-headlines-sports

"Although Time Warner is embroiled in a dispute with NFL Network over carriage fees, Wednesday's announcement was not designed to distract viewers from that fight, according to Jeff Hirsch, president of Time Warner Cable in Los Angeles."

Seems like every time they do anything, from now on, they will be questioned about the NFL Network.

It's hard to argue against a channel regarding a Sport whose pre-season games routinely draw higher ratings than most regular tv shows * and all other Sports.

* Admittedly, they are in reruns.

There was no sarcasm intended on my end. What I said applies to all service providers, but your defensiveness is extremely telling.

Sorry, I meant to be admitting sarcasm on my part.

If I do business with a person, and that person is reasonably priced, provides consistanly dependable support, and works hard to earn my trust, I'm not going to turn my back on him just because someone I don't know undercuts him a little.

The "what have you done for me lately" is devoid of loyalty and trust. It wreaks of selfishness and displays a short term perspective.

I guess I am just old fashioned when it comes to trust and loyalty.
I thought we were talking about TWC ? :)
Loyal or Oblivious ?
Let's just pretend TWC was ever a great customer oriented company that earned my business and loyalty. How long do they have to over charge for less product than the other guys and ignore customers wants, before the "What have you done for me lately" philosophy can be applied ?

Do you still watch NBC on thursdays just because "Cheers" and "Seinfeld" used to be there ? :rolleyes:

I thought we were talking about TWC ? :)
Loyal or Oblivious ?
Let's just pretend TWC was ever a great customer oriented company that earned my business and loyalty. How long do they have to over charge for less product than the other guys and ignore customers wants, before the "What have you done for me lately" philosophy can be applied ?

Do you still watch NBC on thursdays just because "Cheers" and "Seinfeld" used to be there ? :rolleyes:

I guess the best analogy I can come up with is the "fair weather" sports fan.

When the local team is in contention for a title, all of a sudden fans start coming out of the woodwork. But when times aren't so good, their support goes away. And sometimes the franchise fails and the team moves.

Some fans are die hards. They continue to stand by their team year in year out. THOSE are the fans worth having. Not the guy who says "What have you done for me lately?"

Do you still watch NBC on thursdays just because "Cheers" and "Seinfeld" used to be there ? :rolleyes:

I watch "The Office" on NBC on Thursdays. Does that count? ;)

I actually have some work I need to get done today, so I need to bow out. But let me go on record by saying that I hope that TWC and NFLN can reach an accord. If that means that my cable rate goes up a little, I guess I can live with it. (It certainly can't go up as much as gas !!!)

Not being a football fan, it personally won't benefit me, but I don't wish for those who are fans to be denied the option. I still think the NFL is out of line, but I also think Time Warner is being insensitive to it's subscribers.

Bye for now.

I guess the best analogy I can come up with is the "fair weather" sports fan.

When the local team is in contention for a title, all of a sudden fans start coming out of the woodwork. But when times aren't so good, their support goes away. And sometimes the franchise fails and the team moves.

Some fans are die hards. They continue to stand by their team year in year out. THOSE are the fans worth having. Not the guy who says "What have you done for me lately?"
I don't want to get in a battle of analogies, but the Sports one doesn't really work.
There isn't a product or price involved or fans requesting a certain player from another team.

I know I used to shop at Kmart until Walmart with it's bigger inventories and lower prices came to town. Is there a flaw in my character for wanting to go to a store that has more of what I need for a better price ? I would again think of Kmart first if they were a better place to go, which is all everyone is asking TWC to do.
There is no bashing for the sake of bashing. The bashing is meant to shape TWC into a form that fits the mold of a industry leader since many are stuck with NO alternative.

Cox is still being stubborn about adding any new HD channels. NFL Network included. It's frustrating that I don't have any other options in my Condo. Government needs to break up these cable monopolies.

This story was in the Columbia SC paper today.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/sports/15247989.htm


Not much hope for NFLN but looks much better for ESPN2HD and ESPNU. We will win one battle at a time.

A new restaurant opened near us, they have a dish and last night we were watching the Ravens/Skins scrimmage live on NFL HD. Interesting stuff for us football junkies -- too bad that TW only sees the network as showing 8 games. Maybe they should only turn Fox on for AI and so on!

I have a question.

Knology, at least in my area, is advertising a "locked in rate" thru 2008. Do you think this will negatively impact the chances of Knology broadcasting the NFLN-HD broadcast? Bear in mind that I already have the NFLN, just NOT in HD.

TIA for your replies.

Another one: http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_4165697

This line: "Q: Someone told me that since I had Time Warner Cable - and don't get me started on this NFL Network fiasco - I could start getting Dodger games anytime I felt like it, on demand, on one of their channels. Where do I sign up? "

I'm not looking for these comments, but they're popping up everywhere !

OK I got all my work done. Here's my brilliant plan.

NFLN and TWC should enter into a temporary agreement for one season, and offer NFLN in HD ONLY. That way they could put it on the HD tier, raise the rates a couple of bucks, and at least make it available without having to deal with the SD on basic issue this year. Also NFLN wouldn't have to answer to all the cable operators who bought into the basic only clause, but could still get their foot in the door.

Not a perfect solution, but progress. It will never happen though.

Another one: http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_4165697

This line: "Q: Someone told me that since I had Time Warner Cable - and don't get me started on this NFL Network fiasco - I could start getting Dodger games anytime I felt like it, on demand, on one of their channels. Where do I sign up? "

I'm not looking for these comments, but they're popping up everywhere !

from that article:
"So the reality is, it's just one big blue commercial for the team, and one more way to lure subscribers to the company's digital cable tier of pay channels. Take it for what it is, then stop slowing up the traffic trying to get around the accident."

that unfortunately is true of many of the On Demand channels. Pointless content added purely to make the channel lineup appear more interesting.

The worst part about the "NFL fiasco" is TWC turned it from a simple negotiating dispute into a middle finger to the new customers.

If they had simply left the station broadcasting with the 30 day ticker, and did their business with NFL, it would probably have fallen into the pit where all the other channel negotiations go and then forgotten. But because TWC decided to yank it with no warning and then started crying to the FCC when they got told off, and then crying to the lawyers and then the FCC again, they elevated the dispute to a position where everyone knows about it now.

Probably even Adelphia customers who never even realized they had the NFL Network before!

From The Evening Bridge ...
TOP STORY -- The National Football League is now banning local TV crews from the sidelines of its games. According to reports, league representatives said the move was to protect the league's intellectual property and drive more traffic to the NFL's in-house cable channel, NFL Network.
Critics are saying that taxpayers (read: fans, and non-fans for that matter) have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build new stadiums all across the country and now the owners have turned them into private studios.

From The Evening Bridge ...
TOP STORY -- The National Football League is now banning local TV crews from the sidelines of its games. According to reports, league representatives said the move was to protect the league's intellectual property and drive more traffic to the NFL's in-house cable channel, NFL Network.


Yes, I heard this story several weeks ago. Thats a shame.

From The Evening Bridge ...
TOP STORY -- The National Football League is now banning local TV crews from the sidelines of its games. According to reports, league representatives said the move was to protect the league's intellectual property and drive more traffic to the NFL's in-house cable channel, NFL Network.
It seems neither the NFL or Time Warner can help themselves when it comes to avoiding "stepping in it". :p

From The Evening Bridge ...
TOP STORY -- The National Football League is now banning local TV crews from the sidelines of its games. According to reports, league representatives said the move was to protect the league's intellectual property and drive more traffic to the NFL's in-house cable channel, NFL Network.

It's nice to see thes networks get what they deserve IMHO.....

From The Evening Bridge ...
TOP STORY -- The National Football League is now banning local TV crews from the sidelines of its games. According to reports, league representatives said the move was to protect the league's intellectual property and drive more traffic to the NFL's in-house cable channel, NFL Network.

I've been warning you guys. The bastards won't be happy till they have it all !!!!

"Intellectual" property. That's a stretch !!! :D :D :D

From The Evening Bridge ...
TOP STORY -- The National Football League is now banning local TV crews from the sidelines of its games. According to reports, league representatives said the move was to protect the league's intellectual property and drive more traffic to the NFL's in-house cable channel, NFL Network.
By doing this, they probably got rid of 50 people off the sidelines.
Do you think one of those reporters ever gave us some exclusive that we didn't already get from ESPN, the 4 Nets, CNN, FOX News, etc. ? NO
They aren't banning other perspectives, they are banning the local Nuisances from every city in the state that just want to see the game for free on the sidelines. IMHO

Sports On TV
NFL Goes Long
By Ben Grossman and John M. Higgins Broadcasting & Cable 8/14/2006
(Additional reporting by John Eggerton and Melanie Clarke)

Like a rookie at the Super Bowl, the new NFL Network is center stage in a high-stakes match against the game's most fearsome competitors.

The league is betting that it can parlay a lineup of eight regular-season games carved out of its TV packages, 54 pre-season games and highlight reels into critical mass and higher fees for its three-year-old network, currently in 41 million of the nation's 85 million homes receiving cable or satellite.

Already, the network has ignited a war with cable operators, which are content with the supply of games and balk at the prospect of raising cable rates yet again to pay for the price increases (25¢ per subscriber to 90¢) NFL network is pushing.

Taking the offensive, the NFL's ad campaigns exhort fans in print, “Don't let Time Warner ruin your football season.” Cable operators have swung back with Websites and a campaign blasting the NFL's financial demands as unfair and “unnecessary roughness.” The FCC has stepped in to referee.

The fledgling network's marketing plan is audacious even by the NFL's big-spending standards. For the first time since the league's inception in 1966, it will not only sell games to broadcast and cable networks but also air them itself. The league says it will spend as much as $100 million on the campaign, which will span TV, print and radio as well as NFL resources, including in-stadium giant screens.

Considering the $400 million a year that the new six-year package of Thursday and Saturday games would have brought in from an outside network, the NFL's investment totals close to $2.5 billion in its own network—making it the most expensive startup for a cable channel ever.

“The full weight of the NFL marketing machine will be used,” vows NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky in an oft repeated line.

For the league, the network isn't so much about immediate profitability as about building a winning franchise that could one day compete with its biggest clients. The league is preparing itself for a broadband future, when games—or versions of them—are played over the Internet. The network is also a defense, a hedge against the future when the broadcast and cable networks may not be as desperate or willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for TV telecasts.

“There is no more powerful content on television,” says John Rash, senior VP for media-buying agency Campbell Mithun. “The NFL is well beyond sports: It is a national phenomenon, and it can drive distribution.”

“Long-term strategic, it's very smart on their part,” says Dick Ebersol, chairman of sports and Olympics for NBC Universal, which this year begins spending $600 million annually for a Sunday-night football package it hopes will revitalize its slumping primetime. “Who knows where our world will be in six years? Will there be four aggressive network bidders, and if not, why not find out what kind of business you can develop on your own as a potential home for more than just those eight games.”

Critics point to a slim slate of filler programs wrapped around a new package of eight NFL games. However, it might be enough to bring in rabid football fans. NFL football has helped build major networks before, including ESPN in the late 1980s and Fox in the 1990s. “That's the big question: Can you build a network based on eight nights?” says the president of a large cable network, who negotiates sports packages. “But if I was out there building one and I had eight things to pick, it would be eight NFL games.”

To avoid criticism that broadcasts will be PR outlets for the league, it recently acquired four post-season college games and hired big-name talent like Bryant Gumbel and Cris Collinsworth, two announcers with a history of candor. It also will re-air four weekend games every week. Network programming chief Charles Coplin says NFL Network is not only looking at additional post-season college contests but is also interested in adding regular-season college games.

The NFL is flush from recent TV deals, having just cut some for $23.9 billion ($3.73 billion annually) in rights fees from CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, ESPN and DirecTV beginning this season. That almost equals the combined yearly fees of NASCAR, Major League Baseball, the NBA, NHL, NCAA basketball, golf and the Olympics. “This is about equity,” Ebersol says. “If you ever want to make a good bet on equity, you do it when all your other sources are turning out record amounts of money.”

While many big cable operators have agreed to carry the NFL, others—notably Time Warner, Cablevision and Charter—refuse to pay the rate hike. Time Warner and others would prefer to house the network on digital tiers that cost extra to subscribers who want it. Says Time Warner Cable COO Landel Hobbs, “The NFL Network is demanding that we pay $100 million for eight out-of-market games that will be available on local broadcast stations in the team's hometown. That price-value ratio is simply out of whack.”

On its Website, nflgetreal.com, Time Warner Cable reminds customers that they will see 130-200 NFL games on Time Warner Cable this season from ESPN, Fox, CBS and NBC. It also points out that, as with ESPN games, the home and away markets for each NFL Network game will be able to see the contest on an over-the-air station. Therefore, fans will not miss any of their team's games even if they don't get NFL Network.

“Their big risk is that cable operators just say no,” says a media investment banker who does business with sports networks. “Then you've given up $400 million a year and have a network that's just not big enough.”

The hottest battle is with Time Warner. Fred Dressler, the No. 2 cable operator's programming chief, deplores rising sports costs and has been trying to force new networks onto sports tiers with few subscribers. That way, the burden of the high-cost networks is borne only by fans, not by every single subscriber.

NFL Cried foul

The friction heated to a boiling point when Time Warner completed its July 31 acquisition of systems from Adelphia Communications and Comcast. Since Time Warner doesn't have an affiliation deal, it took the opportunity to dump NFL Network from the recently acquired properties. The NFL cried foul, contending that the move violated FCC rules requiring operators to give subscribers 30 days' notice of changes to channel lineups. Acting far more quickly than usual, the FCC ordered Time Warner to immediately restore the football channel.

“With NFL training camps now under way and the NFL's pre-season schedule commencing on Aug. 11, 2006,” the FCC's media bureau said, “now is a time when many football fans have a particular desire to view the NFL Network's programming.” The agency found that “each day that Time Warner customers go without the NFL Network significantly and irreparably harms many of them, particularly those in Buffalo, Cleveland, and Dallas, each of which is home to an NFL team.”

Unless Time Warner is able to successfully appeal the FCC decision, NFL Network remains on the new systems at least until the first of September. On Aug. 4, the cable operator started running a crawl telling viewers that the network could get dropped again if a carriage deal is not struck. If the FCC has not ruled on the NFL's complaint within 30 days of Aug. 4, Time Warner can pull the network again.

Although sports leagues are often the target of political grandstanding, Congress and federal regulators seem to support the NFL's efforts. The FCC has signaled that sports networks—specifically, regional ones—are must-have programming for which there is no substitute. That notion is seconded by legislators, many of whom have to face sports-fan constituents in November elections.

“The political side, frankly, is the hardest,” says one cable operator.

The network was conceived in March 2003, when NFL team owners unanimously approved approximately $100 million in funding for the launch of a league-run network under the guidance of President/CEO Steve Bornstein. The 22-year veteran of ESPN and ABC was pivotal in the growth of the cable sports network into a financial giant.

NFL Network launched in 11.5 million homes with a mix of original programming and NFL Films library content.

By its second anniversary last November, NFL Network followed TNT as just the second cable network to reach 35 million homes within two years. But ancillary programming, pre-season games and the NFL summer league based in Europe were not going to be enough to push the network much further.

In 2005, the NFL was shopping a new package of eight regular-season games to be played on Thursdays and Saturdays late in the season. Comcast, Fox and ESPN were interested, and the price tag was around $400 million a year.

Early that year, NFL Network distribution chief Adam Shaw gave a presentation to the owners outlining how that package could benefit the league's network. As the year went on, many owners began to seriously consider the idea of passing on the short-term cash to build out the cable network and expand the league's media empire. The owners were initially divided, Shaw says. “Up until the day it was decided, I thought it was a coin-toss.”

In early January, the NFL made the landmark decision to put the eight games on its own network and instantly turn it into a major cable player. ESPN—which could potentially suffer most if NFL Network becomes a dominant factor—says it isn't worried for now.

Few networks can appreciate the league's power more than ESPN. The cable sports powerhouse was in only 43 million homes before it began carrying NFL football in 1987. Now reaching more than 85 million homes, ESPN can afford to pay $1.1 billion a year for Monday Night Football. “So far, the competition hasn't hurt us any,” says ESPN VP of Programming and Acquisitions Leah LaPlaca, noting ESPN's established football programming from the NFL draft to the abundant analysis-based shows. “NFL fans are used to tuning into the ESPN networks for that coverage.”

Quick profits will be nearly impossible. For the investment to be worthwhile at the end of six years, NFL Network would have to be generating around $300 million in operating cash flow and around $1 billion in revenue. If the league can ram its license-fee hike through its current distribution of 41 million subscribers, NFL Network will generate around $350 million a year in license fees. At 60 million subscribers, that figure grows to $500 million; at 80 million, $675 million. Near-term goal is 80% national coverage, says Shaw, adding, “We know it might take a year or two to get there.”

NFL Network's ratings will be fairly negligible except during the live games; mighty ESPN generated just $6 million in ad sales per game last season. Even matching that level would give NFL Network just $48 million a season in game revenues. The network would probably be fortunate to generate $35 million from games and other programming in its early years. Growing that dramatically will require a massive programming breakthrough.

Some industry insiders say the NFL may have to settle for around 70¢ per subscriber to get a deal done.

“To be frank, we have been in close contact with Time Warner, and we are still pretty far apart,” says NFL Network's Shaw. “We can be patient.”

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6361913

By doing this, they probably got rid of 50 people off the sidelines.
Do you think one of those reporters ever gave us some exclusive that we didn't already get from ESPN, the 4 Nets, CNN, FOX News, etc. ? NO
They aren't banning other perspectives, they are banning the local Nuisances from every city in the state that just want to see the game for free on the sidelines. IMHO

Agreed.

Having spent some seasons being one of those accredited masses, I can tell you there was little real work done on the sidelines. In fact, you see far less there than from the press box. And, as I understand it, the NFL is not restricting its locker rooms or post game news conferences.

This must be very good news for people in low seats, especially in the end zones. There is no other sport which allows photographers and reporters to stand between its action and its paying fans. I wouldn't be surprised to see a real effort to cut down on the number of still photographer sideline credentials, too.

Agreed.

Having spent some seasons being one of those accredited masses, I can tell you there was little real work done on the sidelines. In fact, you see far less there than from the press box. And, as I understand it, the NFL is not restricting its locker rooms or post game news conferences.

This must be very good news for people in low seats, especially in the end zones. There is no other sport which allows photographers and reporters to stand between its action and its paying fans. I wouldn't be surprised to see a real effort to cut down on the number of still photographer sideline credentials, too.

This would all be fine if their motives were to give paying fans a better experience. THAT IS NOT THEIR MOTIVE !!!

My attitude towards professional football is changing from indifference to total disrespect. Total vertical intergration is obviously the goal. There will be no free football on broadcast TV in ten years if this trend continues.

It seems funny that the NFL is taking any heat on a subject that already was mute: (a quick search back)

http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/sfm/add_reply.html?id=1446


"Good News: According to an item in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, CBS "telecasts of NFL games in the 2006 regular season will not include sideline reporters". If there is a just and merciful God, this report will be true and this situation will continue to obtain until the last days."

The Sideline reporter (local or National) is obsolete and was disappearing long before the NFL put the final nail in the coffin. Last Summer, most thought that last Season was the end of them.

As far as Cable companies/Sports/Costs - Why do these stories keep cropping up ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101648.html

"By Arshad Mohammed
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 12, 2006; Page D01

Comcast Corp. said yesterday that it would raise cable TV rates by $2 a month for its 1.6 million Washington-Baltimore area customers this fall because of the cost of carrying the network that broadcasts most of the Washington Nationals' baseball games."

$2 for everyone for Baseball, outragous !

"Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, which has the TV rights to the team's games, accused Comcast of gouging its customers and unfairly trying to blame the regional sports network for the rate increase."

No kidding !

"Terms of the deal between Comcast and Mid-Atlantic were not disclosed last week. Mid-Atlantic said yesterday that Comcast would pay about $1.25 per subscriber per month to carry the Nationals games this season."

A 75 cent profit per Cable Sunscriber.

Here it is in a nutshell.
According to the Time Warner-created Web site nflgetreal.com, the NFL wants the cable company to pay $100 million to carry the network.

The NFL also wants it to be placed on the expanded basic cable package. Time Warner’s position is that the network belongs in a digital sports tier.

If it were on basic cable, all customers — sports fans and non-sports fans — would see a rise in their bills. A New York Times article estimated the increase would be at least 50 cents.

This issue is no different then our local FOX station boycotting their HD signal to cable here in Green Bay. They also want per subscriber payment. Just charging tier costumers would not be enough for the greedy bastards. So we all get screwed 2 years and waiting for the HD NFL in Green Bay WI, on cable. I hope Time warners sticks to their guns.

PS broke down and added an antenna and tuner card just for the local fox station isn't life wonderful. The only one winning here is Radio shack.

"the NFL Network’s new licensing fees range between 50-75 cents per month"

Read my last post and you will see that Comcast just took a deal for $1.25 cost per subscriber for BASEBALL. They are charging $2 a month to everyone.

Baseball's not even a National Sport anymore, except for Playoffs and the Series !

From 'fredfa', earlier: "$2.60 a month for ESPN and the $2.00 a month for ESPN2 and the $0.70 a month for ESPN News and another $0.50 for ESPN Classic "

All that for Sports channels that show mostly garbage (filler) Sports over the entire year.

So, does any reasonable person think that paying far far far less for the NFL Network is unfair ?

In what reality is the NFL not the most popular Sport in the U.S.A ? Should it not make or cost at least as much as ESPN2 or worse, ESPN News or ESPN Classic ?

This would all be fine if their motives were to give paying fans a better experience. THAT IS NOT THEIR MOTIVE !!!

My attitude towards professional football is changing from indifference to total disrespect. Total vertical intergration is obviously the goal. There will be no free football on broadcast TV in ten years if this trend continues.

And with the steady erosion in OTA "free" TV sports (MLB, NBA, NHL all almost totally migrating to cable) and Sunday (now Monday) and some Thursday NFL games following, why would you possibly think there would be "free" football on broadcast TV in ten years?

Disney paid far more per game (or per "appearance") than CBS, Fox or NBC. That is because ESPN has its dual revenue streams: $$$ from each cable/sat/telco sub as well as advertising.

Therefore Disney and FSN (or any new cable/dbs/telco entity will be able to pay far more for sports rights than the broadcast nets or stations in the future.

And, as always, if you want to see what the future holds, just follow the money.

Cripes!!!

If this isn't a beautiful example of the why the hell there should not be A la Carte cable pricing for people, I don't know what is.

I know it will never happen, but please, oh please, let it.

I'd love to see what the hell goes belly up as far as cable channels are concerned.

And too once and for all see how "popular" football/baseball/NBA/etc.... truly are.

If people are willing to pay for something, they will. Even if they can't, the schmucks will throw themselves into debt.

This will show how popular something is too people. What are you willing to spend to see it.

FREE is SUPER POPULAR because of what it is. Paying for something will show something's true popularity with people/masses.

Maybe it will also give the NFL/MLB/NBA/whomever a swift kick in the A** when they go in for there next negotiation for a tv contract, when they find out nobody is willing to pony up the absurd amounts they are looking for.

That would probably never happen either, but I would love them to have them all eat Sh*& one day.

And I love sports by the way. But there are limits as to what/how much I am willing to spend to see it.

I think they may be reaching the critical point considering how much goods and services as a whole are beginning to increase to absurdly high levels.

I'd much rather eat, have a place to live, put gas in my car($70 bucks now to fill up for G*d's sake!! My next, car in the very near future, is going to be a small one, no doubt), and then have money to save. I am not going to be young forever.

Sports may just have to be put aside.

And with the steady erosion in OTA "free" TV sports (MLB, NBA, NHL all almost totally migrating to cable) and Sunday (now Monday) and some Thursday NFL games following, why would you possibly think there would be "free" football on broadcast TV in ten years?

Disney paid far more per game (or per "appearance") than CBS, Fox or NBC. That is because ESPN has its dual revenue streams: $$$ from each cable/sat/telco sub as well as advertising.

Therefore Disney and FSN (or any new cable/dbs/telco entity will be able to pay far more for sports rights than the broadcast nets or stations in the future.

And, as always, if you want to see what the future holds, just follow the money.

I would guess these NFLN carriage agreements are for the typical three years with reasonble escalation clauses.

But in three or so years when all the carriage agreements are about to expire, watch more regular season games and perhaps some playoff games move to NFLN with a hefty increase. And we'll be going through the same battles.

I think Dressler at TWC is proceding with caution because he knows once he climbs into bed with these guys, he will have contracted an incurable disease, so to speak. :D

Over half of the license fees in my basic cable bill are sports related. Just how much blood do these jerks want. And how do we stop them???

Stick to your guns Fred (D) for all our sakes, fans and non-fans alike.

I think Dressler at TWC is proceding with caution because he knows once he climbs into bed with these guys, he will have contracted an incurable disease, so to speak. :D

And he learned this lesson only after repeatedly jumping into bed with Time Warner, Viacom, Disney, Lifetime, FOX, NBC/Universal, etc.? After that much bed hopping, it's a little too late to start worrying about contracting something.

Do you honestly believe that if TNT bid on the same 8 game package and upped their fee by $0.50 per sub that TWC would have the same outlook?

And he learned this lesson only after repeatedly jumping into bed with Time Warner, Viacom, Disney, Lifetime, FOX, NBC/Universal, etc.? After that much bed hopping, it's a little too late to start worrying about contracting something.

Do you honestly believe that if TNT bid on the same 8 game package and upped their fee by $0.50 per sub that TWC would have the same outlook?

Well, of course not, seeing how they're both owned by Time Warner.

But TNT wouldn't have to. It's core programming is strong enough to stand on it's own two feet. Those eight games wouldn't need to subsidize an otherwise bankrupt schedule.

That's part of the problem with NFLN. Advertising revenue can't support 90% of the schedule.

Stick to your guns Fred (D) for all our sakes, fans and non-fans alike.

Continuing with the firearms analogies ...

Lay down your arms Fred- or, your soldiers (more like, prisoners) will defect.

My local TW is fighting back quietly with a small ad in the sports section of today's paper. It reads:

How do you show your passion for the NFL ?

We do it in High Definition.

We know you love football -- which is why, as a Time Warner Cable customer, you'll enjoy a ton of NFL games this season, many available in High Definition. That includes your home-team games, whether played at home or away, as well as many other NFL games.
I'm sure that ad is being run in TW markets across the country too.

Without a major NFL marketing blitz, there won't be significant uproar until Thanksgiving. At that point TWC only needs to weather the storm for 8 weeks than all pressure will be off until next August at the earliest.

I'm sure plenty of fans will get ticked off Thanksgiving evening, then after a couple weeks of procrastinating, will finally seriously consider their alternatives only to realize there's only 4 or 5 games left that they'll miss.

Without a major NFL marketing blitz, there won't be significant uproar until Thanksgiving. At that point TWC only needs to weather the storm for 8 weeks than all pressure will be off until next August at the earliest.

I'm sure plenty of fans will get ticked off Thanksgiving evening, then after a couple weeks of procrastinating, will finally seriously consider their alternatives only to realize there's only 4 or 5 games left that they'll miss.

Maybe on Thanksgiving they'd be better off spending a little quality time with their families rather than screaming at a TV set. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Quality football viewing at Thanksgiving prevents screaming at family members. :)

By the time the NFL Network game comes on, everyone in the eastern half of the country will be in a food coma, so there won't be any screaming at anyone.

We scream at the TV set AS A FAMILY :)

Of course the solution for all this is to have everyone move to a Telco TV service when available. They have no problem. Recently (Aug. 1st) Verzon's FiOS Tv moved the NFL Network to it's Premium (actually basic) package after numerous complaints about it being in their Sports Package. Appartently, they do listen to their customers.

Ain't competition great.

For the latest articles:

Fairly comprehensive - http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6361889.html

About big problems in Packer Land (Madison) - http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/column/index.php?ntid=94633&ntpid=1

Of course the solution for all this is to have everyone move to a Telco TV service when available. They have no problem. Recently (Aug. 1st) Verzon's FiOS Tv moved the NFL Network to it's Premium (actually basic) package after numerous complaints about it being in their Sports Package. Appartently, they do listen to their customers.

This is what pisses me off. They did not move it in response to their customers. NFLN financially forced them to do so. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Every article I read at the time and since said something like this in regard to Verizon moving the NFL Network from its premium sports package:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6354817.html?display=Breaking+News

"It was an easy call to make NFL Network, with its live games, football news and features, available to more FiOS TV customers," said Terry Denson, VP of FiOS TV content strategy and acquisition, in a statement. "And as more viewers embrace high-definition TV, they can watch their favorite NFL football teams in stunningly brilliant high definition on our fiber-optic network."

Does that sound like they were forced into anything ? It would appear that they were rather gleeful to move the channel so they'd have yet another pin to stick in the bloated Cable balloon.

Of course the solution for all this is to have everyone move to a Telco TV service when available. They have no problem. Recently (Aug. 1st) Verzon's FiOS Tv moved the NFL Network to it's Premium (actually basic) package after numerous complaints about it being in their Sports Package. Appartently, they do listen to their customers.

Ain't competition great.
...
I think your post somes it up the best.
We will see competition more readily move into TWC territory if they see a mass exodus potentially ready to jump ship and on to theirs.
Competition is the one constant.
And as been stated about a la carte, competition among individual channels will kill off the weak. If a la carte happens, is there any reason why we should shed a tear for a channel that disappears because no one wants it, whether it be that they priced themselves out or their programming just sucks?
True competition will solve TWC deficiencies.

This is what pisses me off. They did not move it in response to their customers. NFLN financially forced them to do so. :mad: :mad: :mad:

There's no more force than in any other negotiation. If Verizon felt that losing NFL Network would piss off customers and they'd leave, then they still moved it to basic "for the benefit of their customers" - even if it was for reasons of self-preservation.

DirecTV and DISH also seem to have no problem offering in their base package. DISH charges $29.99 for their Top 60 package that includes the NFL Network - how does that compare to TWC?

This is what pisses me off. They did not move it in response to their customers. NFLN financially forced them to do so. :mad: :mad: :mad:

TWC sychophants ... Unite!

Every article I read at the time and since said something like this in regard to Verizon moving the NFL Network from its premium sports package:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6354817.html?display=Breaking+News

"It was an easy call to make NFL Network, with its live games, football news and features, available to more FiOS TV customers," said Terry Denson, VP of FiOS TV content strategy and acquisition, in a statement. "And as more viewers embrace high-definition TV, they can watch their favorite NFL football teams in stunningly brilliant high definition on our fiber-optic network."

Does that sound like they were forced into anything ? It would appear that they were rather gleeful to move the channel so they'd have yet another pin to stick in the bloated Cable balloon.

This is what Bill O'Reilly might refer to as a "Spin Zone". :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And when you only have a few hundred subscribers, who cares??? We're not talking about a $100,000,000 decision here. FiOS won't be in the black for a decade, if even then.

Two things I learned about telco strategies. They're either already obsolete, or they're too expensive. FiOS may "cream" the market, but don't look for ubiquitous availability anytime soon. And AT&T's solution is all "smoke & mirrors".

This is what Bill O'Reilly might refer to as a "Spin Zone". :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And when you only have a few hundred subscribers, who cares??? We're not talking about a $100,000,000 decision here. FiOS won't be in the black for a decade, if even then. ...
Maybe you can explain something to me, that I am having trouble grasping.
Why does it matter how much the over all financial impact is to TWC? :confused:
Shouldn't they look at "per customer" cost ? I understand that if you charge your customer a little more than what your cost is, then you make a profit. DISH adds channels all the time without raising rates, so their pricing obviously has some padding in it. Is TWC's pricing per customer so tight right now that their is no room to cover channel additions. Or is it that they don't want to lose a single cent of the current profit margin?

Maybe you can explain something to me, that I am having trouble grasping.
Why does it matter how much the over all financial impact is to TWC? :confused:
Shouldn't they look at "per customer" cost ? I understand that if you charge your customer a little more than what your cost is, then you make a profit. DISH adds channels all the time without raising rates, so their pricing obviously has some padding in it. Is TWC's pricing per customer so tight right now that their is no room to cover channel additions. Or is it that they don't want to lose a single cent of the current profit margin?

Some companies have strict budgets, where revenues and costs are projected for the next fiscal year. If TWC, for example, and this is just a guess, charges $45/month for "basic" service, and programming costs between a third to a half of that, for the sake of arguement, let's say a third, then there is $15 of programming costs per sub/month.

At 90 cents per month, NFLN would cause more than a 6% increase in overall programming costs. Such an unanticipated increase within a fiscal year is probably unacceptable. The argument on how to deal with this increase will be handled at the next budget session.

Other companies, while I won't call them reckless, are more fluid in their financial decision making. Investors tend to avoid large commitments to companies that do not adhere to strict fiscal management. Long term, investment capital is more readily available to companies that meet and exceed investor expectations.

Time Warner follows this more conservative approach. Long term, most companies that do are more financially viable. Upstarts HAVE to be fluid. Dish only has Charlie to satisfy. Charlie's strategy is, and always has been, to have the MOST programming. Often times technical quality has been compromised. Charlie does OK at what he does, but he could easily be squeezed out, and long term, probably will be. He's making the most with what he has, and he will bail when the time is right.

Cable systems used to be valued at a price per sub rather than by cash flow. Anytime a system was on the market, driving up subscriber count was obviously the goal.

Some companies have strict budgets, where revenues and costs are projected for the next fiscal year. If TWC, for example, and this is just a guess, charges $45/month for "basic" service, and programming costs between a third to a half of that, for the sake of arguement, let's say a third, then there is $15 of programming costs per sub/month.

At 90 cents per month, NFLN would cause more than a 6% increase in overall programming costs. Such an unanticipated increase within a fiscal year is probably unacceptable. The argument on how to deal with this increase will be handled at the next budget session.

Other companies, while I won't call them reckless, are more fluid in their financial decision making. Investors tend to avoid large commitments to companies that do not adhere to strict fiscal management. Long term, investment capital is more readily available to companies that meet and exceed investor expectations.

Time Warner follows this more conservative approach. Long term, most companies that do are more financially viable. Upstarts HAVE to be fluid. Dish only has Charlie to satisfy. Charlie's strategy is, and always has been, to have the MOST programming. Often times technical quality has been compromised. Charlie does OK at what he does, but he could easily be squeezed out, and long term, probably will be. He's making the most with what he has, and he will bail when the time is right.

Cable systems used to be valued at a price per sub rather than by cash flow. Anytime a system was on the market, driving up subscriber count was obviously the goal.


Oh come on.

Talk about being squeezed out: How much can Time Warner lose at, say AOL, before it has to sell off TWC?

The reason TWC can't lower prices is simple: it's because so much of the rest of the company (can you say AOL or CNN or TBS?) is in shambles.

The larger company needs every freakin' penny and can't allow TWC managers to cut prices. Thus they are by far the highest in the industry.

TWC simply doesn't have the nimble ability of Comcast, Dish, DirecTV, or even the upstart telcos, because it is mired in a company way too big with way too many cooks stirring the pot.

The synergy outbreak of the 1990s has a giant poster child for why it was a disaster and its name is Time Warner.

Oh come on.

Talk about being squeezed out: How much can Time Warner lose at, say AOL, before it has to sell off TWC?

The reason TWC can't lower prices is simple: it's because so much of the rest of the company (can you say AOL or CNN or TBS?) is in shambles.

The larger company needs every freakin' penny and can't allow TWC managers to cut prices. Thus they are by far the highest in the industry.

TWC simply doesn't have the nimble ability of Comcast, Dish, DirecTV, or even the upstart telcos, because it is mired in a company way too big with way too many cooks stirring the pot.

The synergy outbreak of the 1990s has a giant poster child for why it was a disaster and its name is Time Warner.

You make some valid points. However, all these divisions operate independantly from each other, and the rob Peter to pay Paul explanation is not really what's happening here. It's internal to the division.

If there were pressure to support sibling divisions, one would think we would have Cinemax HD on our TWC system. We don't.

Ah, but you were the one who brought up "...Investors tend to avoid large commitments to companies that do not adhere to strict fiscal management. Long term, investment capital is more readily available to companies that meet and exceed investor expectations..."

Thus TWC's main mission in the Time Warner scheme of things is to maximize every penny it can to help bail out the rest of the company.

Were TWC's stock sold separately, things would be different. Right now its job at Time Warner is to bring in every penny of revenue NOW...the future will take care of itself.

And that is the real reason TWC is not adding the NFL Network. The cost would come straight off TW's bottom line and Wall Street would not be happy.

It has nothing to do with holding the line on cable price increases for consumers.

And that is the real reason TWC is not adding the NFL Network. The cost would come straight off TW's bottom line and Wall Street would not be happy.

It has nothing to do with holding the line on cable price increases for consumers.

A long time ago in a management seminar, we, as business managers, were asked to write down what our primary focus should be. There were a lot of platitudes about being the best, making customers happy, quality control, and the like. But those were "means". Our primary focus was to maximize profit. That's alway stuck with me.

Voluntarily adding costs without increasing revenue is not a sound business strategy, unless it's required to remain competative, or to "grow" the business. It remains to be seen how badly TWC, et al, get hurt in all of this.

Because it's not about making customers happy. There's lots of ways to make customers happy. Investors are just AS important. Therein lies the balancing act.

Because it's not about making customers happy. There's lots of ways to make customers happy. Investors are just AS important. Therein lies the balancing act.

Are you kiddin me? Paid subs are customers. If the subs arent happy, they sub with someone else. When that happens, investors arent happy. "Sh*t runs down hill quick."

"...Voluntarily adding costs without increasing revenue is not a sound business strategy, unless it's required to remain competative, or to "grow" the business...."

Finally, finally, you admit the real reason for the impasse: money.

Not, as you posted earlier:

“…rest assured TWC et al are just trying to escape the negotiating table with their belts buckled and their pride intact.”

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8103697&&#post8103697


nor even:

“…TWC says we want to give our subscribers a choice by offering your channel as an option….”

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8163980&&#post8163980


It is, simply, money. Nothing glkorious or generous or far-sighted or even consumer-friendly. Just money.

Thanks for finally agreeing.

Yet I think we all knew the root cause of the dispute from the very beginning -- even the beginning of this thread.

Posg,
Thanks, I get it now.
Although you could have saved some typing by just saying...
"DISH is customer oriented and TWC is stock-holder oriented." :)

You make some valid points. However, all these divisions operate independantly from each other, and the rob Peter to pay Paul explanation is not really what's happening here. It's internal to the division.


so which is it? TWC can't get this done because the division can't work it out or TWC can't get this done because:

"The real issue is that Time Warner Cable is part of a huge conglomerate with boards and stockholders to satisfy"
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8158731&&#post8158731

Make your mind up, either the bloated size of the Time Warner empire is the problem here or the issue is solely with the TWC division.

Posg,
Thanks, I get it now.
Although you could have saved some typing by just saying...
"DISH is customer oriented and TWC is stock-holder oriented." :)
Don't fool yourself, Dish is doing the exact same thing TWC is doing, job No. 1 is to make as much money as possible. The difference between TWC and Dish is that Dish is far more flexible in how they do it since they are not beholden to a massive corporatocracy as TWC is.

Finally, finally, you admit the real reason for the impasse: money.

Not, as you posted earlier:

“…rest assured TWC et al are just trying to escape the negotiating table with their belts buckled and their pride intact.”

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8103697&&#post8103697


nor even:

“…TWC says we want to give our subscribers a choice by offering your channel as an option….”

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8163980&&#post8163980


It is, simply, money. Nothing glkorious or generous or far-sighted or even consumer-friendly. Just money.

Thanks for finally agreeing.

Yet I think we all knew the root cause of the dispute from the very beginning -- even the beginning of this thread.

I fail to see that either of the two statements you refer to are inconsistant with wanting to negociate a favorable, or at least acceptable deal.

If I've confused anyone, I apologize. It's always been about the money, I've never said otherwise.

Posg,
Thanks, I get it now.
Although you could have saved some typing by just saying...
"DISH is customer oriented and TWC is stock-holder oriented." :)

As Seinfeld would say "Not that there's anything wrong with that." :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The best thing about this thread is that it's not too hard to stay on topic !!!

Reality Check Time:

O.K. Granted it's pre-season, but here's an indication of just how popular NFL football really is (isn't). Apparently "Desperate Housewives" has nothing to worry about. A 3.1 rating is less than one tenth of the audience for "American Idol"

HEY THERE'S AN IDEA, "AINT" - American Idol Network Television. And it's sibling channel, AINT HD. How about $2/sub/month ???

'SNF' slides as viewers' curiosity fades
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Aug 14, 2006, 10:35

It didn’t take viewers long to realize that not much has changed from ABC’s “Monday Night Football” to NBC’s “Sunday Night Football,” which features the same announcers and same setup as the old program.

In its second preseason outing, “SNF” fell 14 percent from the previous week, from a 3.6 adults 18-49 overnight rating last week to a 3.1 this week.

Yes, thats pre-season football, not idicative of regular season viewing.

NFLN will start their broasdcast of games just about the time that the playoff picture is coming into focus. If you look at that schedule, I believe that all of those Thursday and Saturday night games with the exception of one game, involves a playoff team from last season.

Also, I believe there has been a steady decline in Sunday and Monday viewers for the past few years.

Yes, thats pre-season football, not idicative of regular season viewing.

NFLN will start their broasdcast of games just about the time that the playoff picture is coming into focus. If you look at that schedule, I believe that all of those Thursday and Saturday night games with the exception of one game, involves a playoff team from last season.

Also, I believe there has been a steady decline in Sunday and Monday viewers for the past few years.

Why the decline??? Could it be that all those spinning graphics, whooshing sound effects, and general OVER production have just made the games too annoying to watch. It's not a game anymore, it's a multi-media extraveganza. More like a Game Show than a game. Wait, maybe that's why it's so popular. Perhaps they replaced John Madden with Bob Barker, or Simon, Paula, and what's his name. :D :D :D

Just my 2 cents.

Why the decline???...

Well, if you listen to the networks and the NFL, its lack of interesting matchups in those time slots. To try and fix that, the NFL and those networks have implemented flex scheduling, to put matchups between better teams (playoff contenders) on the air.

Not to forget. East coast viewers have always had a grip with games starting a 9 PM. That of course, leads to an ending at well after midnight, when most viewers have to get up the next morning for work.

And last night Raiders fans were out breaking into Season ticket holders houses last night instead of watching the game. :D

I watched every second of the Redskins Sunday night, but I could easily have stopped watching in the first quarter when the starters (that were playing) were pulled. Preseason is no indication. Although I would love for the Monday Night game move to Saturday so it would be more of a social event with no work the next day. I don't know how the ratings would shake out though.

Not to forget. East coast viewers have always had a grip with games starting a 9 PM. That of course, leads to an ending at well after midnight, when most viewers have to get up the next morning for work.

I will say that MNF was a significantly different cultural experience on the West Coast. Starting a 6, the bars would fill up right after everyone got off work. Made much more sense, and was a lot more fun than the 9PM stuff, especially in the heyday of the 49er's.

(But then the West Coast is a different cultural experience in a lot of ways. :D :D :D)

Sunday Night makes no sense to me on either coast. You can't exactly stop by the pub to watch the game on your way home. :mad: :mad: :mad:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6361889.html

"In 2005, ESPN’s Sunday night NFL games accounted for 13 of cable’s top 14 shows."


"Ad agency executives said the network is selling an 8.8 cable rating into the marketplace. Last season, ESPN averaged a 7.1 on Sunday nights.

Ebersol at TCA said NBC SNF “will be a double-digit-rated show without any doubt. It will be in the top 10.”

Although ratings long have been trending downward — hitting a nadir with a 10.8 national household mark last season — MNF remained among broadcast top 10 shows for the 14th consecutive year."

Compared to all other Sports that are actually more Local than National, the NFL and it's Broadcasters are not all that worried about any Ratings drop. We are talking NFL football here !

I will say that MNF was a significantly different cultural experience on the West Coast. Starting a 6, the bars would fill up right after everyone got off work. Made much more sense, and was a lot more fun than the 9PM stuff, especially in the heyday of the 49er's.

(But then the West Coast is a different cultural experience in a lot of ways. :D :D :D)

Sunday Night makes no sense to me on either coast. You can't exactly stop by the pub to watch the game on your way home. :mad: :mad: :mad:

I think people are forgetting this fact: Monday Night Football is still there and SNF existed for the past few years already. All that's changed is the networks. Stopping by the bar on Monday night to watch the game isn't effected by the fact it's on ESPN now instead of ABC. Same goes for SNF, it's just on a different network.

Reality Check Time:

O.K. Granted it's pre-season, but here's an indication of just how popular NFL football really is (isn't). Apparently "Desperate Housewives" has nothing to worry about. A 3.1 rating is less than one tenth of the audience for "American Idol"

Here's a real reality check.

How do you suppose the ratings were on Monday night for these channels TWC is charging customers for on the same tier NFL Network is looking to be on? If your point is "popularity", where on this list would you expect the NFL to fall?


23 Shop NBC
24 TBS Superstation
25 Turner Classic Movies
26 Turner Network Television
27 American Movie Classics
28 USA Network East
29 ABC Family Channel East
30 Nickelodeon East
31 Lifetime Television East
32 Cable News Network
33 Headline News
34 Consumer News & Business
35 The Discovery Channel
36 Arts & Entertainment
37 Bravo
38 Animal Planet
39 ESPN
40 Fox Sports South
41 The Weather Channel
42 Video Hits East
43 MTV Music Television
44 Spike TV
45 FX-East
46 Home & Garden Television
47 Travel Channel
48 The Learning Channel
49 Entertainment Television
50 Microsoft NBC
51 Country Music Television
52 Comedy Central - East
53 Cartoon Networks East Fee
54 The Disney Channel - East
55 Food TV
56 TV Land
57 Fox News Channel
58 National Geographic Chann
59 Black Entertainment Telev
60 Turner South
61 Women's Entertainment Net
62 Oxygen
63 Univision - TV
64 Science Fiction Channel
65 The History Channel
66 The Golf Channel
67 Speed Channel
68 ESPN-2
69 ESPN Classic Sports Netwo
70 Cable Satellite Public Af
71 C-SPAN 2
72 Lifetime Movie Network Ea
73 Home Shopping Network
74 Outdoor Life Network
75 Court TV
76 Hallmark Channel
77 Eternal Word TV Network
78 Inspirational Network
95 Discovery Health Channel
98 Style
99 TV Guide Channel
152 Ovation
153 Family Network
154 BET on Jazz
156 Discovery Health Channel
157 Discovery Kids
158 Discovery Science
159 Discovery Wings
160 Discovery Home
161 Discovery Times Channel
162 The Biography Channel
163 History International
164 FIT TV
165 Fine Living Network
166 Style
167 Nickelodeon Games & Sports
168 Nick Toons
169 Toon Disney
170 BBC America
171 Lifetime Movie Network Ea
172 Bloomberg TV
173 G4techTV
174 Sleuth TV
175 Newsworld International
176 MTV2
177 Noggin
178 iLifetv
179 CSPAN 3
180 fuse.
181 The Disney Channel - West
182 America's Store
183 Do it Yourself Network
184 VH1 Classic
185 Great American Country
186 Goodlife Television
187 The Black Family Channel
188 TV One
189 SoapNet
190 Boomerang

And everyone keeps forgetting the real value of football ( --which cable takes advantage of in its local avails, by the way: young men watch it. In droves.
There is nothing else -- NOTHING -- that draws young men to the TV set like football.
Advertisers covet them, so the rates are higher.
It is not just pure viewers -- ask CBS about that. It has "won" (by an average of several million viewers) the total viewers race the past three seasons, yet everyone on Madison Avenue talks about Fox as the winner because it has the most (by a very slim margin) 18-49 viewers.

And everyone keeps forgetting the real value of football ( --which cable takes advantage of in its local avails, by the way: young men watch it. In droves.
There is nothing else -- NOTHING -- that draws young men to the TV set like football.
Advertisers covet them, so the rates are higher.
It is not just pure viewers -- ask CBS about that. It has "won" (by an average of several million viewers) the total viewers race the past three seasons, yet everyone on Madison Avenue talks about Fox as the winner because it has the most (by a very slim margin) 18-49 viewers.

It doesn't matter if you sell one million dollars worth of advertising if the program costs you 1.2 million dollars to acquire. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ABC got out their calculator and came to the same conclusion.

Fact is that the NFL has priced itself out of being viable depending exclusively on advertising dollars. They need subscription fees as well.

It doesn't matter if you sell one million dollars worth of advertising if the program costs you 1.2 million dollars to acquire. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ABC got out their calculator and came to the same conclusion.

Fact is that the NFL has priced itself out of being viable depending exclusively on advertising dollars. They need subscription fees as well.

(Obviously the executives running CBS, Fox and NBC disagree with you.)

And by the way, ABC's calculator has a large mouse face on it -- the same calculator owned by the ESPN folks -- who have run ABC Sports for years.

It is just a conglomerate moving an asset from one entity to another. And with so many of ABC's hits being female-skewed the need for a male-oriented platform in MNF has eroded.

Fact is that the NFL has priced itself out of being viable depending exclusively on advertising dollars. They need subscription fees as well.

Take a look at post #359, and tell me how many of those networks are "viable, depending exclusively on advertising dollars" - and where was TWC's fiscal responsibility when adding all those networks and passing on those costs to consumers?

Here's a real reality check.

How do you suppose the ratings were on Monday night for these channels TWC is charging customers for on the same tier NFL Network is looking to be on? If your point is "popularity", where on this list would you expect the NFL to fall?

Populaity is only part of the equation. Many of those less popular networks have a much higher return on investment than the sports channels, with modest carriage fees subsidizing sufficient ad revenue.

We may be talking big revenues, but thin margins. That is usually a recipe for disaster. Not that the NFL is in trouble, yet. But they haven't seemed to have reached the bottom of the pocket, yet.

(Obviously the executives running CBS, Fox and NBC disagree with you.)

And by the way, ABC's calculator has a large mouse face on it -- the same calculator owned by the ESPN folks -- who have run ABC Sports for years.

It is just a conglomerate moving an asset from one entity to another. And with so many of ABC's hits being female-skewed the need for a male-oriented platform in MNF has eroded.

The folks at CBS, Fox, and NBC have been able to justify the costs because research has shown NFL football can be used to drive viewers to more profitable programming. It's a house of cards. :D :D :D

Take a look at post #359, and tell me how many of those networks are "viable, depending exclusively on advertising dollars" - and where was TWC's fiscal responsibility when adding all those networks and passing on those costs to consumers?

Let's just wait and see how far TWC (and other cablecos) push their fight against paying to rebroadcast local signals.

What percentage of homes will immediately defect to telco or dbs (or even OTA) the moment ABC/CBS/Fox/NBC/ etc (and in NY, LA, Texas, Florida and Arizona markets the Spanish stations, which lead the ratings) disappear from lineups.

It seems odd how DBS and telco seem to be able to pay for local rebroadcast with no problem and keep their monthly bills lower than cable.

Clearly the time for cablecos paying for carriage of local stations is just around the corner. And it should be: the locals add far more value as a group to cable than any other set of stations.

Good luck TWC.

Let's just wait and see how far TWC (and other cablecos) push their fight against paying to rebroadcast local signals.

What percentage of homes will immediately defect to telco or dbs (or even OTA) the moment ABC/CBS/Fox/NBC/ etc (and in NY, LA, Texas, Florida and Arizona markets the Spanish stations, which lead the ratings) disappear from lineups.

It seems odd how DBS and telco seem to be able to pay for local rebroadcast with no problem and keep their monthly bills lower than cable.

Clearly the time for cablecos paying for carriage of local stations is just around the corner. And it should be: the locals add far more value as a group to cable than any other set of stations.

Good luck TWC.

Although they disguise it, DBS still sells locals as an add-on option, and pays only for those subscribers who elect them. It is A La Carte all the way. It's a profit center for the satellite operators, not a cost.

The telcos are too small right now to do anything except pay premium rates for everything. It's just a pill they have to swallow.

The broadcasters have leveraged all the sibling networks they can muster onto cable systems "in consideration" of retransmission, and now that that well is dry, it's time for cash.

My argument is this. What incentive does a broadcaster have to provide abundant quality programming when all he needs is a couple of marquee events to extort carriage fees from cable operators, and fill his schedule with cheaper programming.

In other words, you move the target away from attracting viewers, because eyeballs are all you have to sell, to a mixture of ad revenue and subscription fees, AND THAT IS NOT "IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST". Especially if they still expect market exclusivity for their product.

Funny how the arguments conveniently shift to suit TWC's interests.

D* is going to be including LILs standard in all packages. That means all subs will be used when calculating carriage fees (I think it's close to 90% now anyway). Plus digital locals - which were separately negotiated - are included at no charge for all their LIL subs.

So your point is that DBS and Telcos have that "pill to swallow", but cablecos should be excluded because they agreed to retransmission of sibling networks? Are you kidding? Do you think DBS is immune from bundling by the networks?

Stick to your guns TWC, after all, broadcast networks only offer 2 - 3 hours a day of quality programming. Maybe if you setup a website, your customers will demand that the local networks be carried a la carte so they confine their costs to the 99 "high demand" cable channels that TWC customers really want. Good luck with that.

I personally don't care if broadcasters charge cable operators or not. I see the logic and illogic on both sides of the fence.

But what I do mind is the bulls**t games they play. If every group owner published a rate card for his portfolio of channels, and let the market decide, fine. In otherwords Sinclair might charge 50 cents for an NBC SD channel with a 10 cent surcharge for the HD. CW might be 25 cents and a nickel, EVERYWHERE.

But now their going to try to leverage all their digital sidecar channels in as part of their deals, and it's going to be a mess. And they'll give it away to small systems while holding TWC's feet to the fire, all the while saying "Barnyard Cable wants you to have CBS but TWC hates you."

And the only winners again will be the bloodsucking attorneys.

But now their going to try to leverage all their digital sidecar channels in as part of their deals, and it's going to be a mess. And they'll give it away to small systems while holding TWC's feet to the fire, all the while saying "Barnyard Cable wants you to have CBS but TWC hates you."

And the only winners again will be the bloodsucking attorneys.

But this is the system that has been created. All kinds of networks have been leveraged into the lineup using different methods depending on the target MSO. The end result is identical in all these negotiations, but the PR departments will put the most advantageous spin on it.

Yes, it's ridiculous to say TWC hates the football fan, or E* hates women (during the Lifetime negotiations) - but that PR battle is what ensues because none of the parties involved really want the nuts and bolts made public. TW, Comcast, D*, etc. can't make bundling an issue because they have affiliated business units that need bundling in order to maximize profits.

TWC can stand up to the NFL because they have no distribution for TW products, and no other channels to hold as leverage. If Comcast or News Corp purchased the NFL Network, negotiations with TWC would immediately come to a successful conclusion.

But this is the system that has been created. All kinds of networks have been leveraged into the lineup using different methods depending on the target MSO. The end result is identical in all these negotiations, but the PR departments will put the most advantageous spin on it.

Yes, it's ridiculous to say TWC hates the football fan, or E* hates women (during the Lifetime negotiations) - but that PR battle is what ensues because none of the parties involved really want the nuts and bolts made public. TW, Comcast, D*, etc. can't make bundling an issue because they have affiliated business units that need bundling in order to maximize profits.

TWC can stand up to the NFL because they have no distribution for TW products, and no other channels to hold as leverage. If Comcast or News Corp purchased the NFL Network, negotiations with TWC would immediately come to a successful conclusion.

Why is everybody afraid to disclose the details of their negotiations. It's because they're being sneaky and dishonest and not playing on a level playing field. They smell the money, and play the ambush game.

You're not an attorney are you? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

I'm leaning towards the NFL Network, primarily because of the reasons for the impasse. Cable is only resisting because of their "outsider" status when in reality, what the NFL is doing is far less insidious than what transpired when all the other ancillary networks were added. Overpriced or not, at least the battle is defined around the cost vs. the value of the programming/network.

The costs added for the many other small cablenets had very little to do with value to the cableco or their customers. It is just a cash-grab reserved for those few megacorps that are in a position to scratch each other's backs.

I'm leaning towards the NFL Network, primarily because of the reasons for the impasse. Cable is only resisting because of their "outsider" status when in reality, what the NFL is doing is far less insidious than what transpired when all the other ancillary networks were added. Overpriced or not, at least the battle is defined around the cost vs. the value of the programming/network.

The costs added for the many other small cablenets had very little to do with value to the cableco or their customers. It is just a cash-grab reserved for those few megacorps that are in a position to scratch each other's backs.

I'm obviously leaning towards the cable side because I think the value equation is out of whack. Not that I think half of what's on basic cable is worth what it costs. I just think that the NFLN deal is a pack with the devil just like ESPN turned out to be. TWC could probably drop all the MTV channels and not miss a beat. I'm not so sure that's true once they give subscribers NFL. I can hear the behind the scenes pep rally at NFLN - "TEN YEARS - TEN DOLLARS!!!" :D :D :D

When they start dropping MTV and the 75% of the other channels where the value equation is out of whack, I'll be on the TWC bandwagon right beside you. Until then, it's just a hypocritical application of the value argument that only affects fans of the NFL.

When they start dropping MTV and the 75% of the other channels where the value equation is out of whack, I'll be on the TWC bandwagon right beside you. Until then, it's just a hypocritical application of the value argument that only affects fans of the NFL.

Except that more than half of the programming costs are already sports related, so for the non-sports fan, it's JUST as out of whack.

I don't think full A La Carte is the answer, but it sure would make sense to divide basic into five or so major categories at $9.95 each. Perhaps Sports, News & Public Affairs, General Entertainment, Lifestyle, Educational & Informational, Broadcast Channels, and the junk could still be "free".

Dividing by categories will do nothing to prevent the existing abuse. Subs that only want CNN will be forced to pay for Fox News, and whatever other channels Fox decides to add to the genre - and vice versa. The only difference is that they will apply the same tactics to each individual category - don't carry CNN International, and 3 more channels to be named later and you can't carry CNN.

Let the value of the programming on each network justify its price - just like you are suggesting with the NFL Network.

Dividing by categories will do nothing to prevent the existing abuse. Subs that only want CNN will be forced to pay for Fox News, and whatever other channels Fox decides to add to the genre - and vice versa. The only difference is that they will apply the same tactics to each individual category - don't carry CNN International, and 3 more channels to be named later and you can't carry CNN.

Let the value of the programming on each network justify its price - just like you are suggesting with the NFL Network.

When everyone has an OCAP compliant TV. Until then, can you imagine the chaos. :eek: :eek: :eek: Too complicated for the subscriber, and the rates would go up just to train the CSR's. They're "challenged" as it is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Very true, the controlled cable rates and highly skilled CSRs available under the status quo is much preferred. ;)

Although they disguise it, DBS still sells locals as an add-on option, and pays only for those subscribers who elect them. It is A La Carte all the way. It's a profit center for the satellite operators, not a cost.

I must be missing something here.

How do Dish and DirecTV "disguise" the monthly charge for locals?

Those charges are detailed in every bill.

Now CNN, the ESPN suite, RSNs, TNT, those are disguised.

Very true, the controlled cable rates and highly skilled CSRs available under the status quo is much preferred. ;)

And TWC, in particular scores so well annually in the JD Power survey.

Oh sorry that wasn't TWC, or Comcast.

That was Dish and DirecTV.

And they charge less too!

What sloppy business practices they must have. :D

OK, now that I've contributed to the gradual shift in focus of the thread - let's keep the discussion confined to the NFL vs. cablcos vs. their customers.

I'll take my uncontrollable pro-a la carte outbursts elsewhere. :)

OK, now that I've contributed to the gradual shift in focus of the thread - let's keep the discussion confined to the NFL vs. cablcos vs. their customers.

I'll take my uncontrollable pro-a la carte outbursts elsewhere. :)

Yeah, we need threads titled "Broadcasters vs. Cable Holdouts", "HDTV channels vs. Cable Holdouts", "Al Queda vs. Cable Holdouts", "Santa Claus & the Martians vs. Cable Holdouts".

Let's give credit where credit's due. At least the discussion hasn't degenerated into a discussion about actual football. As the season wears on....... :cool:

I must be missing something here.

How do Dish and DirecTV "disguise" the monthly charge for locals?

Those charges are detailed in every bill.

Now CNN, the ESPN suite, RSNs, TNT, those are disguised.

Because you can still buy basic service "with" or "without" locals. "Without" is cheaper. Broadcasters only get paid on those who choose "with".

The disguise is there marketing says you can get one thousand channels (I think Dish has a million) "including your locals" (*where available) for $X/month.

But they are optional. The bill clearly shows that. And that's how they've gotten away with "cost plus" pricing. Incremental revenue rather than incremental cost.

I'M NOT SAYING IT'S WRONG. I WISH CABLE OPERATORS WERE AFFORDED THE SAME OPTION.

Apples, oranges, peaches, pears. :D

fredfa and cpanther95.

I noticed you both have the same join date, Oct 2002. fredfa has over 2000 more posts than cpanther95. I'm but a mere amateur. I think we maybe all need "lives".

Santa Claus, hands down. Game over.

fredfa and cpanther95.

I noticed you both have the same join date, Oct 2002. fredfa has over 2000 more posts than cpanther95. I'm but a mere amateur. I think we maybe all need "lives".

And you've never seen us post at the same time....hmmmmm.

And you've never seen us post at the same time....hmmmmm.

You aren't one of those guys who has two screen names and answers his own posts, a cyber pschytophreniac ??? They're out there !!!!

If DBS' are the only ones charging separately for locals then how come I used to pay TWC 8 bucks for nothing but channels 2-13 (not including HBO on 7) before D* offered LiL service.

How is that different?

If DBS' are the only ones charging separately for locals then how come I used to pay TWC 8 bucks for nothing but channels 2-13 (not including HBO on 7) before D* offered LiL service.

How is that different?

Because it's not possible to order any cable packages without limited/lifeline basic? Are you able to say to TWC that you got your locals just fine with your antenna and just wanted expanded basic? Probably not.

When everyone has an OCAP compliant TV. Until then, can you imagine the chaos. :eek: :eek: :eek: Too complicated for the subscriber, and the rates would go up just to train the CSR's. They're "challenged" as it is. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
A la carte is the solution to NFL vs. TWC since TWC won't give a penny off current profit margins.
Why do you think a la carte would be so mind blowing ?
Customer and cashiers do it all day long at Walmart. Or Amazon...
Login to TWC website check the channels you want and hit submit.
I wouldn't have a problem with TWC, DISH, etc. saying you can only take advantage of a la carte through the web or form sent with your bill, since CSR's usually can't handle change in procedure.

Apples to apples. When you want a PPV movie from TWC, they some how manage to get that to you. Wouldn't a whole channel be easier than one program to manage?

A la carte is the solution to NFL vs. TWC since TWC won't give a penny off current profit margins.
Why do you think a la carte would be so mind blowing ?
Customer and cashiers do it all day long at Walmart. Or Amazon...
Login to TWC website check the channels you want and hit submit.
I wouldn't have a problem with TWC, DISH, etc. saying you can only take advantage of a la carte through the web or form sent with your bill, since CSR's usually can't handle change in procedure.

Apples to apples. When you want a PPV movie from TWC, they some how manage to get that to you. Wouldn't a whole channel be easier than one program to manage?

Problem is all TV's don't have set-top boxes. How do you regulate what channels they can access and which channels they cannot???

In order for A La Carte to work, you have to do what satellite does, and have a set-box at every location, or someday down the road OCAP compliant TV's.

Maybe the solution is to offer analog basic, AND have the option of subscribing A La Carte, but a set-top would be required.

Maybe the solution is to offer analog basic, AND have the option of subscribing A La Carte, but a set-top would be required.


I agree that this is the best solution. Often unmentioned is the fact that local franschising authorities, in consideration for allow cable companies to drape cable all over their right of ways, mandate that cable companies provide "basic cable" AKA ch. 2-13 (or in my case 2-25) for a low price (in my case $6.75 / month). This solution would allow cable companies to fufill their contractual obligations to the franchising authorities.

The problem with adding the NFL network to expanded basic is that TWC fears that people will balk at paying $48.00/month for expanded basic rather than $45.00 and will switch back down to the basic tier. At the basic tier, the cable company is likely losing money or just breaking even on each customer. Satellite companys really don't have to deal with this issue.

Both parties have done their math.

NFL Networks can't make as much money being on a tier no matter how they structure it.

TWC will lose less revenue from defectors than they would loose from eating the cost of NFL Networks.

Sounds like a stand-off.

These situations are always confusing. Comcast has an agreement for the SDs, and to show the HD games, but not the whole NFL Network HD channel. So why couldn't TWC do that?

In spite of peoples' complaint about the NFL, there will be loud screaming if a cable company doesn't show these games in HD. Comcast is aware of this and is trying to make accomodations. Obviously, TWC doesn't care. Of course, Comcast won't add HDNET, so each cable company looks at things differently.

Rich N.

If they carried the SD feed and not the HD feed - there's no question TWC could tolerate the potential defections. The NFL won't only use the HD feed as leverage.

This is just another example of why Time Warner trails Comcast, Cox, DirecTV and Dish (among others) in the yearly J.D. Powers customer satisfaction survey released today.

If they carried the SD feed and not the HD feed - there's no question TWC could tolerate the potential defections. The NFL won't only use the HD feed as leverage.

Speaking of the HD feed, I think we all pretty much know that the stand-off between NFLN and TWC centers around NFLN insistance that it (at least the SD)be carried on basic service.

But what about the HD? Could that be part of the HD suite, or would it have to be carried in ClearQAM? And how would they handle the license fee? All HD Suite subscribers, or all basic subscribers?

Any ideas at all about how the HD version is being positioned?

Speaking of the HD feed, I think we all pretty much know that the stand-off between NFLN and TWC centers around NFLN insistance that it (at least the SD)be carried on basic service.

But what about the HD? Could that be part of the HD suite, or would it have to be carried in ClearQAM? And how would they handle the license fee? All HD Suite subscribers, or all basic subscribers?

Any ideas at all about how the HD version is being positioned?


Knology carries the NFLN on their Digital Preferred tier. Why cant TWC?

Ive spoken to reps from both sides of the fence on the broadcast of the HD signal. Both say that negotiations are ongoing.

Knology carries the NFLN on their Digital Preferred tier. Why cant TWC?

Ive spoken to reps from both sides of the fence on the broadcast of the HD signal. Both say that negotiations are ongoing.

My guess is that they are "grandfathered" under an old contract. We are all pretty sure that option is not on the table for TWC.

Problem is all TV's don't have set-top boxes. How do you regulate what channels they can access and which channels they cannot???

In order for A La Carte to work, you have to do what satellite does, and have a set-box at every location, or someday down the road OCAP compliant TV's.

Maybe the solution is to offer analog basic, AND have the option of subscribing A La Carte, but a set-top would be required.


The cable solution exists, now.

Despite the wailing of the cable industry (because it stands to lose money from lucrative STBs), it exists and works well -- when the cable cos allow it to. (And that STB at every location sure has hurt the expansion of satellite in the past decade, hasn't it?) :rolleyes:

Anyhow the existing device is called a cable card.

Aside from that, have SA or Motorola include such a device in their boxes -- which would cost little and whose cost could be borne by the sub -- each of whom could be saving major amounts of money by switching to a la carte.

-------------------------------

It is amusing how the cable industry's response keeps switching in its desperate fight against a la carte.

First they want us to have our full choice of channels.

When that doesn't work, they speak earnestly about wanting to foster diversity of channel voices.

Oops, that didn't stick either, back to the old faithful: wanting to save us money.

Then they want to .... aww, who cares?

As posg correctly notes, no matter what they say it all comes down to one thing: profit -- or at least the potential of profit as seen by cavlke company management.

My guess is that they are "grandfathered" under an old contract. We are all pretty sure that option is not on the table for TWC.


Of course that option was on the table for TWC in all areas where it acquired Comcast or Adelphia customers.

Nonetheless TWC cut them off immediately from the NFL Network.

My guess is that they are "grandfathered" under an old contract. We are all pretty sure that option is not on the table for TWC.

Ahhh...the benefits of a cableco that jumps onboard in a timely manner.

This is just another example of why Time Warner trails Comcast, Cox, DirecTV and Dish (among others) in the yearly J.D. Powers customer satisfaction survey released today.

Seems to vary significantly by region.

In the Southeast, where i live, TWC got 4/5, their sibling Brighthouse got 5/5 in the overalls. No other cable operator got more than 3/5. Dish 3/5, DirecTV 5/5.

In your area, West Coast, TWC did terrible with 2/5.

Maybe that's why we have such differing impressions.

The cable solution exists, now.

Despite the wailing of the cable industry (because it stands to lose money from lucrative STBs), it exists and works well -- when the cable cos allow it to. (And that STB at every location sure has hurt the expansion of satellite in the past decade, hasn't it?) :rolleyes:

Anyhow the existing device is called a cable card.

Aside from that, have SA or Motorola include such a device in their boxes -- which would cost little and whose cost could be borne by the sub -- each of whom could be saving major amounts of money by switching to a la carte.

-------------------------------

It is amusing how the cable industry's response keeps switching in its desperate fight against a la carte.

First they want us to have our full choice of channels.

When that doesn't work, they speak earnestly about wanting to foster diversity of channel voices.

Oops, that didn't stick either, back to the old faithful: wanting to save us money.

Then they want to .... aww, who cares?

As posg correctly notes, no matter what they say it all comes down to one thing: profit -- or at least the potential of profit as seen by cavlke company management.

I think the big losers in an A La Carte world would be all of the "marginal" cable networks. There would certainly be a major housecleaning. And the trickle down effect could impact TV producers. :eek: ;) :eek: ;) :eek: ;)

I quite frankly don't think cable operators would suffer. They'd just charge more for less, and their margins wouldn't be severly impacted.

Besides, they're too busy building the REAL profit streams, high speed data, and phone service. That's where the growth is.

Funny nobody's mentioned that one of the biggest moneymakers for both satellite and cable are all the PPV porn channels. ;)

Of course that option was on the table for TWC in all areas where it acquired Comcast or Adelphia customers.

Nonetheless TWC cut them off immediately from the NFL Network.

Was it ??? Maybe the reason TWC yanked them so quickly was their refusal to honor any existing contracts. You're a lot closer to all this than I. But I wouldn't be too suprised if that wasn't a factor.

Was it ??? Maybe the reason TWC yanked them so quickly was their refusal to honor any existing contracts. You're a lot closer to all this than I. But I wouldn't be too suprised if that wasn't a factor.

regardless, it was something that TWC should never have done. Resolving disputes with networks by screwing the customer doesn't really help their situation.

TW would still have to have what I want on the a la carte list to make that work. If TW has a la carte now I can't get ESPN2HD, etc. Would every station that is available everywhere be on an a la carte list? I think not. TW would still make the list just as a restaurant does now. For example, we used to go to a restaurant a lot but they changed their menu and took several of our favorites off -- now we don't go. The manager said he was sorry but it was a corporate decision. Hmm sounds like a TWC restaurant!

If a cableco's income was derived from getting as many a la carte selections as possible, they're much more likely to expand their lineup. Plus, chances are there'd be no ESPN2 anyway. ;)

I think the big losers in an A La Carte world would be all of the "marginal" cable networks. There would certainly be a major housecleaning. ...
If a channel can't gather an audience than it should go away !!!
The problem is there is a channel that gathers an audience like Lifetime and then mirror channels pop up like Oxygen, We, etc. Now when a la carte happens and only Lifetime gets subscribed to, are we worse off when the clones disappear ? NO.
Now this is easy for me to say since I don't like wife beater movies. But the same can be said for sports. If Fox Sports South doesn't carry more than 2 Carolina games I wouldn't pay for it. So either they need to change their programming or charge 5 cent a month to get me to subscribe.
I can't think of one channel that deserves subsidizing (by other channels or taxes) including PBS to stay alive.

More Cable companies being questioned:

http://www.dailymail.com/news/Sports/2006081631/

West Virginia

Highlights

"In the Kanawha Valley, few cable customers get the NFL Network, unless they desire a pay-per-view option on Adelphia's Putnam County service. Charter made the NFL Network available to Charleston cable homes as an add-on service, but with Suddenlink's purchase of the local Charter system, the NFL Network option is gone."
=
"For now, however, what viewers want is those eight late-season games. Watching the NFL is an inalienable right, right?"
=
"Palansky said NFL Network isn't allowing cable providers to use the network as leverage to drive up rates to subscribers or create another sports tier for which cable systems could pass the increased cost onto consumers.
=
Palansky said NFL Network isn't allowing cable providers to use the network as leverage to drive up rates to subscribers or create another sports tier for which cable systems could pass the increased cost onto consumers."
=
There's one problem there for Suddenlink subscribers.

It's not even listed among the cable company options on the NFLN letter.

A few days ago, I stopped at the Charleston Town Center cable office to inquire about the NFL Network and Suddenlink. I was told it wasn't in the plans.

Palansky said he spoke with NFL Network executives who "are responsible for working with Suddenlink about getting NFL Network on there and the news is not good.

"We reached out to Suddenlink again earlier this month and they again expressed no interest in carrying NFL Network.

"Therefore, we suggest people in Charleston use the options of DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast or potentially even Verizon there to get NFL Network. All those providers carry us and do not charge customers extra to do so."

* To read the complete article, check out the Link, above.

====

Football, it's good for you: http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/5880524?FSO1&ATT=HCP&GT1=8485


Associated Press

KENTON, Ohio - A judge decided two high school athletes can complete the football season this fall before they serve 60-day jail sentences for a car crash caused by a decoy deer placed in a country road. Two teens were injured.

"I shouldn't be doing this, but I'm going to. I see positive things about participating in football," Judge Gary McKinley said Tuesday.

* A bit overboard, but this shows the status of Football in American life. Complaints raised by those most affected - check out the Link, above.

Happy days are here! I called TWC this morning and summarily dumped them. Directv will now be getting my money (much less for Directv than I overpaid TWC). Got the Sunday Ticket deal, 4 free months of full programming, free Super Fan, free HD DVR, etc etc etc. TWC asked why I was leaving them and I told her because of their moronic stance on the NFL Network situation. She informed me that I wasn't the first to leave them for that reason. Good riddance to an awful cable company.

I wonder how many complaints they've received since getting nearly 8,000 the first day or two ?

Anyone have an update ?

NFL Dishes Up Some Star Players

By Ben Grossman -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/17/2006 6:04:00 PM

The National Football League is calling its next play in its battle with Time Warner and the other cable companies on which it is not carried; this weekend it will send former NFL stars to Dish Network retailers in selected markets.

The network will arrange appearances including former Bills quarterback Jim Kelly, former Jets wide receiver Wayne Chrebet, former Cowboys running back Tony Dorsett, former Bills running back Thurman Thomas and former 49ers and Raiders defensive back Ronnie Lott.


Targeted markets include Buffalo, Long Island, Dallas, Tampa, Green Bay, San Antonio and St. Louis.

The league has launched a consumer marketing campaign in an attempt to drive viewers to call their cable companies or switch to satellite providers. The network is in 41 million homes, 27 million of which are satellite owners.

Time Warner has scoffed at carrying the network on a basic package and wants to place it on a sports tier. The sides are also said to be a good amount apart on subscriber fees.

The NFL Network begins carrying live regular-season football for the first time on Thanksgiving night, kicking off a package of eight Thursday and Saturday games.

http://broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6363666.html?display=Breaking+News

FYI ...
DISH just added FOOD-HD a couple of days ago, and my Bill didn't go up. :cool:

FYI ...
DISH just added FOOD-HD a couple of days ago, and my Bill didn't go up. :cool:

However, you need to hurry up and post that Dish Network DVR on eBay before the word gets out.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=712483

However, you need to hurry up and post that Dish Network DVR on eBay before the word gets out.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=712483
Thanks for the tip. Maybe I can buy another one cheap. :rolleyes:

Right now TIVO has a deal with DirecTv and Comcast. Notice I didn't say TWC, so who will be sued next ? hmmm... I don't know..... could it be... SATAN!! I mean TWC.

This is a clear case of patent abuse. The patent claims ownership of the idea of a DVR, not on a specific technology that makes it work. TIVO sucks. Watch DISH partner with Replay or Moxi instead of given TIVO a dime.

Tivo's tactics may suck, but their service does not. I got the Directv HD Tivo yesterday and it completely destroys the turd that TWC had given me.

Fortunately, the reports from D* are that the interface in the new non-Tivo MPEG4 is great. Of course, they also said that jumping back after FF'ing was not needed because their focus groups showed that people don't want their DVR to be so presumptuous. ;)

Tivo's tactics may suck, but their service does not. I got the Directv HD Tivo yesterday and it completely destroys the turd that TWC had given me.
Don't mean to question your consumer awareness, but you do realize all new HD channels are going up in mpeg4 (including locals). It is also only a matter of time before they convert all their current HD channels to mpeg4 and force you to another box.
I hope you enjoy your crippled TIVO box for it's incredibly short life. :)

EchoStar Announces Federal Circuit Blocks Tivo Injunction
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68854&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=897186&highlight=

TWC & Cablevision getting Torched by Tiki

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=46944


Time Warner, NFL Fight, Dish Scores
by David Goetzl, Friday, Aug 18, 2006 8:00 AM ET
AS TIME WARNER CABLE AND the NFL Network continue their spat over whether the cable operator must carry the football outlet, Dish Network is seizing the opportunity to score new customers. Dish is launching an ad blitz featuring New York Giants running back Tiki Barber to persuade football-hungry customers to dump cable and sign up with the satellite operator.


The national TV, radio and print campaign stars the charismatic Barber and carries an "I want football 24/7" message--a reference to NFLN's nonstop football programming.

The principal target is the customers of TWC and Cablevision--the two largest cable operators that don't offer NFLN and have more than 17 million customers combined. Dish carries the network as part of its America's Top 60 package.

The offensive also includes an Iwantfootball24-7.com Web site, which highlights Dish's financial incentives for customers to switch, such as service for $24.99 a month, plus a DVR upgrade.

In addition to Barber, five other (current) NFL stars, including Dallas quarterback Drew Bledsoe, will be featured in local versions of the campaign in targeted markets.

Dallas is one the markets in which NFLN was dropped by TWC when the cable operator took control of their cable systems formerly operated by Comcast or bankrupt Adelphia. Los Angeles, Buffalo and Cleveland are other markets where NFLN was benched on July 31, then reinstated under an FCC temporary ruling. A final decision is pending.

Under the ruling, the FCC suggested that TWC violated regulations requiring it to give customers 30 days notice before ditching a channel. TWC has since notified the more than 1 million customers who were affected that a permanent cutoff is coming under the 30-day rule on Sept. 3.

TWC and the NFLN have failed to agree on terms for carriage of the network. The cable operator wants to carry the network on a pay-for-play sports tier--only customers who want it pay for it. The NFLN believes it should be carried on expanded basic services largely because it will carry eight regular-season games this fall.

The questions are starting in San Antonio:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/stories/MYSA081806.05D.ART0.2d187c5.html

* The reporters facts are a little off, but he's got the gist of it.

http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_230171848.html

"(CBS) LOS ANGELES The Los Angeles City Council agreed Friday to ask the Federal Communications Commission to ensure that the NFL Network is included in the basic cable television package offered by Time Warner.

The NFL Network, a national channel airing National Football League games throughout the season, was pulled from Time Warner's basic package just weeks after the company acquired Adelphia and Comcast, which had previously served some 600,000 subscribers throughout Los Angeles.

NFL Network was placed back on the cable company's basic package, but could be pulled again on Sept. 3 if network executives cannot reach a deal with Time Warner executives, who want to offer the channel as part of a costlier premium package. "

=

This must drive you 'NFL is Local' folks crazy as stories like this appear - especially in Football inane L.A. where they have not had a team in a long long long time.

The overwhelming numbers of Fans everywhere can only hope that National, State and Local Governments around the Country take action to protect Citizens against Cable companies that are trying to deny (drop the channel) or gouge (on Digital Tier or in Sports Package) subscribers for America's favorite Sport - it's un-American !

Don't mean to question your consumer awareness, but you do realize all new HD channels are going up in mpeg4 (including locals). It is also only a matter of time before they convert all their current HD channels to mpeg4 and force you to another box.
I hope you enjoy your crippled TIVO box for it's incredibly short life. :)

The directv installer showed me the dish required for MPEG4. I'll never use it. It's about 3 times the size of the current dish I have. Not an option. And I'll enjoy what I have for as long as they offer it, thank you very much. I got it for Sunday Ticket and the NFL Channel. Good riddance to Time Warner.

Ugh, I've already seen the advertisement scroll across my now Time Warner owned cable system saying they will drop NFL Network if an agreement is not reached.

Hopefully, NFL Network will drop their ridiculous demands.

Hopefully, NFL Network will drop their ridiculous demands.


I would agree with you if not for the fact that TW and Cablevision are the only 2 major companies that haven't signed up. If dish network, who is known to be very conservative in there negotiations, can make a deal with the NFL net then its amazing TW is stonewalling. The truth is TW wants to establish this sports tier and they want to use the NFL network as the major draw.

Hopefully, NFL Network will drop their ridiculous demands.

Which demands are ridiculous in your mind?

FYI ...
DISH just added FOOD-HD a couple of days ago, and my Bill didn't go up. :cool:

no way! How can that be possible? Everyone knows that you can't add channels without everyone having to pay for it! TWC said so!

You must live in the crazy town dimension.

no way! How can that be possible? Everyone knows that you can't add channels without everyone having to pay for it! TWC said so!

You must live in the crazy town dimension.

TWC has the same philosophy as the federal government. How many times have you heard a politician say, "and how are we supposed to pay for <fill in the blank> without raising taxes?". Never mind the zillions of dollars that we already pay.

http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_230171848.html

"(CBS) LOS ANGELES The Los Angeles City Council agreed Friday to ask the Federal Communications Commission to ensure that the NFL Network is included in the basic cable television package offered by Time Warner.

The NFL Network, a national channel airing National Football League games throughout the season, was pulled from Time Warner's basic package just weeks after the company acquired Adelphia and Comcast, which had previously served some 600,000 subscribers throughout Los Angeles.

NFL Network was placed back on the cable company's basic package, but could be pulled again on Sept. 3 if network executives cannot reach a deal with Time Warner executives, who want to offer the channel as part of a costlier premium package. "

=

This must drive you 'NFL is Local' folks crazy as stories like this appear - especially in Football inane L.A. where they have not had a team in a long long long time.

The overwhelming numbers of Fans everywhere can only hope that National, State and Local Governments around the Country take action to protect Citizens against Cable companies that are trying to deny (drop the channel) or gouge (on Digital Tier or in Sports Package) subscribers for America's favorite Sport - it's un-American !

To me, this is actually a good sign. If they are pissed in LA (notorious for being lacadaisical about the NFL), then imagine what is going on in the football crazy TWC cities (Green Bay, Charlotte, Buffalo, etc.). I hope the pressure continues to build up. But, the pessimist in me still thinks that TWC is looking to just ride this storm out, hoping that people will eventually just accept the fact that they don't care about customer demand.

Which demands are ridiculous in your mind?

I don't know about his mind, $10/year/household seems a little steep for eight games. Remember they have more than tripled their rates just for the addition of those eight games. In my mind, that's ridiculous. I don't even like football. :eek: :eek: :eek:

I don't know about his mind, $10/year/household seems a little steep for eight games. Remember they have more than tripled their rates just for the addition of those eight games. In my mind, that's ridiculous. I don't even like football. :eek: :eek: :eek:

That equates to less than .03 cents per day. Sign me up.

Try attending just one game in person, then find a complaint.

TV Sports
NFL Turns Up Heat on Cable Ops
Multichannel News 8/18/2006

Like two-a-days, the NFL Network continues to turn up the heat on cable operators, as it is bringing in a number of former pro football greats to tout the service at Dish Network retailers.

Beginning this weekend, the network, which is embroiled in a public dispute with Time Warner Cable and has yet to ink carriage contracts with a number of key cable operators, will send out former Buffalo Bills quarterback Jim Kelly, ex- Dallas Cowboysrunning back Tony Dorsett and Ronnie Lott, who used to play in the secondary for the San Francisco 49ers, Oakland Raiders and New York Jets, to make appearances in key markets.

In addition to the aforementioned Hall of Famers, former Jets wideout Wayne Chrebet and former Bills running back Thurman Thomas will also make appearances on behalf of the NFL Network. The network’s game plan calls for the players to talk up the service and sign autographs at Dish retailers in Buffalo and Long Island, New York, Tampa, Green Bay, San Antonio, Dallas and St. Louis. Cable operators currently do not carry the service in these markets.

NFL Network, which counts some 41 million subscribers, has also enlisted the support of radio stations to trumpet the player appearances, and will hand out network premiums and promotional materials at the retail locations.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6364093

To me, this is actually a good sign. If they are pissed in LA (notorious for being lacadaisical about the NFL), then imagine what is going on in the football crazy TWC cities (Green Bay, Charlotte, Buffalo, etc.). I hope the pressure continues to build up. But, the pessimist in me still thinks that TWC is looking to just ride this storm out, hoping that people will eventually just accept the fact that they don't care about customer demand.

Unlike the vast majority of Angelenos, the City Council has always been almost slavishly devoted to the return of the NFL.

It also has been very vocal about its unhappiness with Adelphia -- so this particular issue seems to be a confluence of its concerns.

One other problem is what the NFL and it's Network consider as Local when they let certain TV stations have the game. Certain people seem to think that the only interest in Preseason and regular Season games is mostly local, but now stories like this crop up that leave some out of the 'Local' area:

http://www.beloblog.com/ProJo_Blogs/newsblog/archives/2006/08/tomorrows_pats.html

People in Rhoad Island, like many who think they're 'Local', will have big trouble getting the Patriots vs the Cardinals game tonight. Think they will be mad ? No doubt !

=

What about Nationally, wait till 10's of millions find out they will not even have a chance to see Matt Leinart and/or Tom Brady in this game. Complaints will roll in.

The NFL Network is pushing their own 1-866-NFL-NETWORK number to give people a way to vent or push their Cable company to get the channel.

=

.... and the Survey says: http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_6701.asp

"Which networks would you say really stood out in this latest survey?

Among cable subscribers age 18 and over, emerging networks ranking the highest in viewing interest were Fox Movie Channel, Hallmark Movie Channel, Science Channel, Discovery Home, History International, Biography Channel, Weatherscan, NFL Network, IFC and DIY. National Geographic Channel, Lifetime Movie Network, Discovery Health Channel and Superstation WGN were the top-ranked mid-sized networks.

However, other networks ranked high among specific audience segments. For example, NFL Network, CSTV and ESPN U ranked high among men, specific MTV and Nickelodeon digital nets ranked high among teens, etc."

Remember they have more than tripled their rates just for the addition of those eight games. In my mind, that's ridiculous. I don't even like football. :eek: :eek: :eek:

You don't like football - obviously you'll see no value in the NFL Network. Whether someone feels $0.90 a month is excessive or not, relatively speaking, if old NFL Films repeats are worth $0.30 a month, then there's no doubt that 8 exclusive national games is worth another $0.60.

ESPN quickly got about a $1 premium because of their 16 or 17 game SNF package - and that was many years ago.

Are those games worth more than CNN or Cartoon Network? Many would say "definitely" - and as long as programming value is determined by some cable executive instead of the consumer, there will be these types of conflicts.

I don't know about his mind, $10/year/household seems a little steep for eight games. Remember they have more than tripled their rates just for the addition of those eight games. In my mind, that's ridiculous. I don't even like football. :eek: :eek: :eek:

So, how does about $31.20 per year sound for ESPN ? How can this 'triple cost' be justified if this so called Sports Network has far less total NFL Football coverage than the NFL Network does, year around - week by week.

The NFL is America's top sport by wide unquestioned margins and ESPN devotes far more content to all the other Sports - much of that, completely worthless I and many others say. Between the Pro Bowl and near the beginning of the PreSeason, the only coverage they have at all is the NFL Draft, which blows away the Ratings of all other Sports during that time period. They ought to charge less than the NFL Network because of that slight to the majority of American sports Fan's alone. All during the so-called off-season, I hear nearly everyone I know say they've tuned into the NFL Network (if they have it) or that they wish they could. ESPN leaves many Fans cold... even during this PreSeason, they have limited total NFL coverage compared to the NFL Network.

At $31.20 a year, Sports Fans should think of some sort of Class Action to force ESPN to give us part of our money back - perhaps based on the amount of NFL coverage vs everything else.

no way! How can that be possible? Everyone knows that you can't add channels without everyone having to pay for it! TWC said so!

You must live in the crazy town dimension.
:D :D :D
I've met my Smart@ss equal.
Crazy town some days, Lazy town others... but no TWC in either. Everyone has SAT and it only rains HD channels. :D

So, how does about $31.20 per year sound for ESPN ?

Based on their average ratings and the actual number of households that ever use the channel, way out of line.

And that's JUST for ESPN, not ESPNHD, ESPN2, ESPN2HD, ESPN Classic, ESPNews, EPSNU, ad nauseum...........

:D :D :D
I've met my Smart@ss equal.
Crazy town some days, Lazy town others... but no TWC in either. Everyone has SAT and it only rains HD channels. :D

Wait, I thought I was your smartass equal. :mad:

Let's start flooding the TWC customer service lines with calls. Even if you have D* or E* and you are served by TWC, please call your local customers service. I want to see the NFL games on Thursday and Saturday night.

You don't like football - obviously you'll see no value in the NFL Network. Whether someone feels $0.90 a month is excessive or not, relatively speaking, if old NFL Films repeats are worth $0.30 a month, then there's no doubt that 8 exclusive national games is worth another $0.60.

as stated before I don't particularly care about football either but I find this whole situation indicative of the TWC attitude, so I find the situation extremely interesting. It's either all their way or not at all, which is why TWC are still missing other channels.

How they deal with this situation (which so far has been badly) will affect more than just those interested in the NFL. NFL is the major sport. NFL network is the official oulet for the number one sport in the country. TWC and Cablevision are the only "major" provider exceptions. Given the very public nature of this scenario, eventually, all customers (except Posg obviously) will start to look at this and say "if everyone else can show it, why can't TWC?"

Have you tried calling CS. In the SC area the hold times run 15 to 25 minutes at any time of the day or night!

Another shining example of how YWC cares about its customers!

I am going to add ESPN Game Plan but have been waiting until I have time to be on hold that long with nothing better to do.

I do, however, ask for ESPN2HD ESPNU, NFLN every time I do talk to someone. I have been doing that for two or more years so you can see how much TWC cares about its customers.

In Austin, TX, at least, TWC might not have space for the NFL Network, but it does have space for more sports.

Time Warner quietly launches all-sports channel
In Austin TX 24-hour sports goes local
By Diane Holloway Austin American-Statesman

You've probably heard of a "soft launch," but how about a covert launch?

When nobody was looking — or even suspecting — Time Warner's News 8 Austin launched a 24-hour local sports headline service on Digital Channel 408.

On Aug. 8, News 8's Non-Stop Sports , aka NSS, was born. Flip to 408 on your digital service and there it is, spewing out sports info day and night.

Brian Benschoter, general manager of News 8, describes NSS as "still a work in progress," but he says we should think of the new channel as "a locally focused SportsCenter." This month the focus will be on football previews for area high schools, the University of Texas, Texas State and Texas A&M.

"But as we move into September, it will evolve into more sports-news-of-the-day, with a perpetual score ticker," Benschoter says.

Like News 8, NSS is a "wheel" format, updated throughout the day, but unlike News 8, which has updates on the hour and half-hour, the sports wheel will vary in length. On a slow sports day, it could be as short as 15 minutes; on a big sports day, such as Texas-Oklahoma game day, it could expand to an hour.

Benschoter says the sneaky launch was to give the channel time to work out technical glitches.

"Now we feel comfortable enough with the new technology to go public and ask for viewer feedback and suggestions," he says. "I'm amazed by how many people have already found it."

http://www.austin360.com/tv/content/tv/stories/2006/08/16sportstv.html

I drove 7 hours round-trip today for a college football scrimmage. I listened to the Panthers game on the radio on the way home, and watched it on TiVo when I got home at 11. I DO like football.

For NFLN to triple their rates and demand to be on a non-premium tier is too much. I subscribe to the sports tier (Charter) but know many who don't. Requiring this revenue stream from all customers, even those not interested in sports, is IMO ridiculous. It is just a mechanism for falsifying their rate card.

I would think a large percentage of those proclaiming to LOVE football already subscribe to a sports tier. If so, what is the issue?

Edited to clarify: Charter added NFL Net about 1 year ago to the sports tier but removed it several months ago when the tiering issue developed.

I would think a large percentage of those proclaiming to LOVE football already subscribe to a sports tier. If so, what is the issue?

The issue is why the NFL doesn't get subsidized by all subscribers but the 50 or 60 other channels on expanded basic do.

I drove 7 hours round-trip today for a college football scrimmage. I listened to the Panthers game on the radio on the way home, and watched it on TiVo when I got home at 11. I DO like football.

For NFLN to triple their rates and demand to be on a non-premium tier is too much. I subscribe to the sports tier (Charter) but know many who don't. Requiring this revenue stream from all customers, even those not interested in sports, is IMO ridiculous. It is just a mechanism for falsifying their rate card.

I would think a large percentage of those proclaiming to LOVE football already subscribe to a sports tier. If so, what is the issue?

Edited to clarify: Charter added NFL Net about 1 year ago to the sports tier but removed it several months ago when the tiering issue developed.

The issue is that sports fans also subsidize a huge number of basic tier programming that don't get near the audience as NFLN. If I'm paying for their shows, why shouldn't they pay for mine?

EDIT: sorry, I see that CPanther95 was making the same point.

Actually, I suspect CP95 was making precisely the opposite point: why should anyone subsidize anyone else's entertainment choice?

The most egregious case, of course, is ESPN, where some 60 million people who never watch nonetheless contribute so that Disney can afford massive contracts with sports leagues.

Actually, I suspect CP95 was making precisely the opposite point: why should anyone subsidize anyone else's entertainment choice?

The most egregious case, of course, is ESPN, where some 60 million people who never watch nonetheless contribute so that Disney can afford massive contracts with sports leagues.

Actually, ESPN has many, many, many, many more viewers than say HGN or Oxygen for example, or even the history channel(which I watch from time to time). Actually they have more viewers than about 15 of my standard tier channels combined.

I do however think that there should be something like a "Pick 20" that constitutes your basic tier and that the networks should get payed based on the number of subscribers. Any channel that isn't happy about it could go to pay-per-view or subscription. Of course the FCC would never let the consumer have something that is in their best interest.

True, and ESPN charges far more than any of the channels you mentioned, many of which are available for literally pennies per sub. ESPN charges close to $3 per month per sub, and that does not include additional charges for ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPNU, ESPN Desportes, etc.

A number of channels routinely get higher ratings than ESPN and charge far, far less.

True, and ESPN charges far more than any of the channels you mentioned, many of which are available for literally pennies per sub. ESPN charges close to $3 per month per sub, and that does not include additional charges for ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPNU, ESPN Desportes, etc.

A number of channels routinely get higher ratings than ESPN and charge far, far less.

Like I said, I understand where you guys are coming from. Letting the profiteers set the rules is rediculous. Having the Cable companies cry foul is equally rediculous. They want their cake and eat it too. They can't have it both ways. If they want open market then you can't blame ESPN/Disney for driving max market.

The FCC should have stepped in and helped the consumers ages ago. But, they haven't worked for the consumer in ages. However, there are economic analysts who would argue that, although it seems expensive on a case by case basis, that this process actually drives a cheaper model over the long term. I will always point out though that cheaper is NOT better. Of course EXPENSIVE doesn't equal quality either.

Speaking of Charter, St. Louis is waking up:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/rams/story/02CCE0C33B851C48862571D000037133?OpenDocument

Highlighted section:

""The amount of money they are asking us to pay would require us to pass that on to our customers, and we understand that not everybody is a football fan,'' Charter's Williams said. "On the sports tier, the people who are interested in it would pay to get it. The amount they want, business-wise, is not a good investment for us.''

Charter carried the network on the sports tier last season.

"The reason it no longer is on there is because Charter was in violation of our agreement,'' Palansky said of it not being placed in the general package. "We charge a license fee, yes, but in exchange the cable operator gets several minutes of ad time that they get to sell and keep all revenue from. They're making it back on ad revenue and not having to pass the cost to the consumer.

"These cable companies that want to put us on a sports tier see NFL fans as passionate and willing to pay anything to get the product. We're trying to make a stand by saying 'No, no, no.' If we sign that deal, they can charge consumers whatever they want.''

An alternative is satellite. NFL Network is available on DirecTV and DISHNetwork and the NFL has made a deal with DISHNetwork for it to be available for $24.99 per month as part of a basic package, although other charges may apply.

"If DISHNetwork can offer this channel for $24.99, and give you 85 other channels, again its not the money that's getting in the way here,'' Palansky said.

But Charter's Williams says it is about the money.

"We have a good football fan base here, but there are a lot of people who don't want to pay extra for it,'' she said.

= = =

* Football is the most popular Sport in the U.S. and placing the NFL Network in a Sports Package/Tier 'IS' making the majority of Sports Fans pay extra for it. I'm convined that the whole problem is that they can't sell enough of their Sports Package/Tier to make a profit without placing the NFL Network into it - sheer greed !

= = =

I bet the phones were ringing when 10's of millions of people found out they could not get the Pats vs the Cards last night. Game info: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/games/2006-08-19-roundup2_x.htm

= = =

Even tiny Cable companies get pressure: http://www.courant.com/business/hc-cable0820.artaug20,0,5585482.story?coll=hc-headlines-business


"Eastern's system only has room for 80 channels, compared with the more than 100 channels that other systems provide. This leads to pressure from customers to keep up with the newest offerings, such as the NFL Network."

also noticed new ads in my area last night reaching out to footbal fans.

Apparently "Time Warner Cable is THE place for NFL football."

Hmm. Who'd a thunk it?

More from La LA Land: http://www.latimes.com/sports/printedition/la-sp-nfltv21aug21,1,6707994.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-sports

Council Backs NFL Network
By Larry Stewart, Times Staff Writer
August 21, 2006


The Los Angeles City Council is running interference for NFL Network in its carriage dispute with Time Warner Cable in L.A.

The council on Friday passed a resolution introduced by Councilman Bernard Parks that encourages the Federal Communications Commission to extend indefinitely a temporary order issued Aug. 3 that required Time Warner to restore NFL Network to its customers. The original order extends through Sept. 3.

The resolution asking for the extension passed by a 7-1 margin. The dissenting vote came from Councilman Bill Rosendahl, a former Adelphia cable executive. He said the parties should work out their differences on their own.

The FCC's temporary order came two days after Time Warner Cable abruptly took NFL Network off the channel lineup following a takeover of Adelphia and Comcast, both of which serviced homes in the L.A. market.

That takeover, completed through purchase of bankrupt Adelphia and an asset swap with Comcast, involved about 1.6 million television households in the greater L.A. market. Time Warner now serves about 2 million households in the market and about 600,000 in the city of L.A.

Parks argues that Time Warner's dropping of NFL Network is the city's business because he believes it will force cable customers to turn to satellite services DirecTV and Dish Network, which offer NFL Network. Cities accrue tax dollars from cable subscribers but not from satellite subscribers.

Parks said Friday that Time Warner executive Deane Leavenworth had promised the council that there would be no change in service after Time Warner took control of the Adelphia and Comcast homes in L.A. Then, Parks said, he went home the next day and NFL Network was gone from his cable lineup.

* More info through Link, above.

I don't know about his mind, $10/year/household seems a little steep for eight games. Remember they have more than tripled their rates just for the addition of those eight games. In my mind, that's ridiculous. I don't even like football. :eek: :eek: :eek:

OK, we get it ... you hate football. Anyone who has read any of your posts on this thread knows that. But, you and some others act like the NFL Network will be showing 8 football games and the rest of the time, they'll show a black screen. They have other content you know? For football junkies, programs such as "NFL Total Access", the press conferences, the delayed showings of out of market games, etc.--- are all great viewing. Why do think this network was thriving even before they created the 8 game regular season package?

Yes, it's expensive. But, to a huge number of subscribers, it's worth it. And, to those who say, "why do I have to pay for something I won't watch" ... that can be said for 90% of the garbage channels that all of us have to pay for now.

Everyone I know that can get the NFL Network, checks out "NFL Total Access" religiously. Many, in areas where it's not available, wish they could get this. I've actually had friends that don't live in my area visit my house and watch. Once they've seen it, they immediately say they will demand the channel from their Cable company.

It can become an addiction !

I just called TWC in South Carolina to order ESPN Game Plan for my college football fix and gave a polite rant for NFLN, ESPN2HD and EPSNU. The person I talked to told me that TWC should have NFLN within a month.

With that information and about $2.00 you should be able to get a coffee of some kind at Starbucks. ;)

Sounds great but, i wouldnt hold my breath.

I just called TWC in South Carolina to order ESPN Game Plan for my college football fix and gave a polite rant for NFLN, ESPN2HD and EPSNU. The person I talked to told me that TWC should have NFLN within a month.

I think there's a magical multiple choice button on the other end of the phone. The CSR presses the button and it comes up with a random answer that it thinks the customer would most like to hear.

It's most probably recorded using Fred Dressler's voice.

He's confusing it with the old Adelphia territories. They get NFL within a month (only within the current month) ;)

OK, we get it ... you hate football. Anyone who has read any of your posts on this thread knows that. But, you and some others act like the NFL Network will be showing 8 football games and the rest of the time, they'll show a black screen. They have other content you know? For football junkies, programs such as "NFL Total Access", the press conferences, the delayed showings of out of market games, etc.--- are all great viewing. Why do think this network was thriving even before they created the 8 game regular season package?

Yes, it's expensive. But, to a huge number of subscribers, it's worth it. And, to those who say, "why do I have to pay for something I won't watch" ... that can be said for 90% of the garbage channels that all of us have to pay for now.

I don't hate football. I just don't care about it.

But I think it's great that two out of the three video providers in your area carry it. :D :D :D

I don't hate football. I just don't care about it.

But I think it's great that two out of the three video providers in your area carry it. :D :D :D

Unfortunately, for me (and probably many others)- 2 of those (satellite) are not possible due to where I live. That leaves only 1 "choice"-- the crappy cable company who has the worst channel line-up in the business. Any guesses?

Unfortunately, for me (and probably many others)- 2 of those (satellite) are not possible due to where I live. That leaves only 1 "choice"-- the crappy cable company who has the worst channel line-up in the business. Any guesses?

I read that both D* and E* claim coverage of around 90% of the television households. Obviously there are a few who simply cannot "see" their signals from their location. But usually where there's a will, there's a way. I've seen some pretty creative dish installations.

On the other hand, there are some locations that can't get cable, but can get satellite. Retail locations surrounded by pavement are often economically unservable.

But I bet if you really really tried......

I read that both D* and E* claim coverage of around 90% of the television households. Obviously there are a few who simply cannot "see" their signals from their location. But usually where there's a will, there's a way. I've seen some pretty creative dish installations.

On the other hand, there are some locations that can't get cable, but can get satellite. Retail locations surrounded by pavement are often economically unservable.

But I bet if you really really tried......

Maybe ... I know- I can hire a 7 ft. guy to stand on my apartment building roof 24x7x365-- and face him in a SW direction and tell him he can never move. Then I can have someone drill holes all over the building to run cable-- from the dish my guy is holding to my apartment.

Thanks. Now I have a plan.

I read that both D* and E* claim coverage of around 90% of the television households. Obviously there are a few who simply cannot "see" their signals from their location. But usually where there's a will, there's a way. I've seen some pretty creative dish installations.

On the other hand, there are some locations that can't get cable, but can get satellite. Retail locations surrounded by pavement are often economically unservable.

But I bet if you really really tried......
I have to disagree with you when you say that if you want NFL Network you have 2 other choices, because for a whole lot of Americans that is not true.

There is no way 90% of Americans have an unencumbered view of the SW skies. 90% of the residence in NY, LA, Chicago, etc. could get SAT if they wanted to ? If you believe that I have some magic beans I'll sell you. And from whatever % of Americans can get SAT with what you call a "creative dish installation", you have to deduct for the UGLY factor. If a person can get SAT by installing it in the middle of their front yard (if they even own a home), I would think most would shy away from that unless they are like me and the NEED for HD and Football are too much.

Cable has the one wire hookup solution. If they had the price, up to date receivers and the choice of channels SAT has, they would be the clear choice. But for most Americans cable is the only option. Not just cable but the ONE cable company that happens to be in their area, in my case the second most sucky of all TWC; with Charter being the worst.

SAT can't go everywhere do to lack of a SW view or other restrictions. However your reason that some are not served by cable is all too telling. It's not that Cable can't provide a hookup, but that they WON'T. Until Cable has to provide access to their lines like Telcos do or a truly wireless solution that can serve 95% of a market, Cable will continue to be a monopoly and act as such.

I have to disagree with you when you say that if you want NFL Network you have 2 other choices, because for a whole lot of Americans that is not true.

There is no way 90% of Americans have an unencumbered view of the SW skies. 90% of the residence in NY, LA, Chicago, etc. could get SAT if they wanted to ? If you believe that I have some magic beans I'll sell you. And from whatever % of Americans can get SAT with what you call a "creative dish installation", you have to deduct for the UGLY factor. If a person can get SAT by installing it in the middle of their front yard (if they even own a home), I would think most would shy away from that unless they are like me and the NEED for HD and Football are too much.

Cable has the one wire hookup solution. If they had the price, up to date receivers and the choice of channels SAT has, they would be the clear choice. But for most Americans cable is the only option. Not just cable but the ONE cable company that happens to be in their area, in my case the second most sucky of all TWC; with Charter being the worst.

SAT can't go everywhere do to lack of a SW view or other restrictions. However your reason that some are not served by cable is all too telling. It's not that Cable can't provide a hookup, but that they WON'T. Until Cable has to provide access to their lines like Telcos do or a truly wireless solution that can serve 95% of a market, Cable will continue to be a monopoly and act as such.

The worst case scenerio, the caverns of high rise downtown business districts, are typically not heavily residential. However, even those areas have greater access to satellite reception than you might suspect.

Many high rises offer DirecTV as an option to cable. A parallel DirecTV distribution system is wired through access ducts connected to a master dish on the roof. In fact, in many high rise areas, the tenant associations have exclusive bulk rate agreements with DirecTV and don't have cable available at all. How do I know ??? I used to engineer and install them !!!

I have no doubt that the 90% number is a good number, in fact if anything it's conservative. The fact that you say FOR MOST AMERICANS CABLE IS THE ONLY OPTION undermines the credibility of any factual statements you may actually make. :D

Speaking of Charter, St. Louis is waking up:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/rams/story/02CCE0C33B851C48862571D000037133?OpenDocument

"We charge a license fee, yes, but in exchange the cable operator gets several minutes of ad time that they get to sell and keep all revenue from. They're making it back on ad revenue and not having to pass the cost to the consumer. "

I thought this was a key piece of information in the debate that sure makes it look like the cable companies are ONLY trying to push their sports tier as a new revenue stream. Seems like the NFL has given a reasonable compromise here by giving the cableco a new revenue stream in return (aside from letting them attract customers such as myself who have been riding out DirecTV's recent woes without switching because we'd lose NFL network and ESPN2-HD...)

The worst case scenerio, the caverns of high rise downtown business districts, are typically not heavily residential. However, even those areas have greater access to satellite reception than you might suspect.

Many high rises offer DirecTV as an option to cable. A parallel DirecTV distribution system is wired through access ducts connected to a master dish on the roof. In fact, in many high rise areas, the tenant associations have exclusive bulk rate agreements with DirecTV and don't have cable available at all. How do I know ??? I used to engineer and install them !!!

I have no doubt that the 90% number is a good number, in fact if anything it's conservative. The fact that you say FOR MOST AMERICANS CABLE IS THE ONLY OPTION undermines the credibility of any factual statements you may actually make. :D
As I have stated many times I would love for TWC to provide the channels and pricing that SAT does. And I will jump ship for the best overall offering in a heartbeat. Right now I am with DISH, but I could very well be praising cable if I had a cable choice that was worth a damn. I have TRUE credibility as an objective consumer of HD + SD programming. You, not so much. :D

I guess I could add an adjective like "viable" to my statement to add a pinch more credibility. But for MOST americans that prefer the easy one cable hookup to all tv's in the home with zero impact on home, SAT is not an option. I don't think dish's are any uglier than OTA's or mailboxes, but MOST including myself would prefer not to have them in their front yard or on their roof.

I am intrigued that a high rise can have dishes with multiple LNBs pointed at different SATs and distribute one cable to an apartment for them to receive all that DISH or DirecTv has to offer. Are you sure that you are representing that correctly? I had heard that the apartments such as this have DirecTv channels fed into a distribution center that sent out the basic channels. So I am to understand someone could hook up the new mpeg4 HD receiver in one of these high rises and receive ALL that DirecTv has to offer?

As I have stated many times I would love for TWC to provide the channels and pricing that SAT does. And I will jump ship for the best overall offering in a heartbeat. Right now I am with DISH, but I could very well be praising cable if I had a cable choice that was worth a damn. I have TRUE credibility as an objective consumer of HD + SD programming. You, not so much. :D

I guess I could add an adjective like "viable" to my statement to add a pinch more credibility. But for MOST americans that prefer the easy one cable hookup to all tv's in the home with zero impact on home, SAT is not an option. I don't think dish's are any uglier than OTA's or mailboxes, but MOST including myself would prefer not to have them in their front yard or on their roof.

I am intrigued that a high rise can have dishes with multiple LNBs pointed at different SATs and distribute one cable to an apartment for them to receive all that DISH or DirecTv has to offer. Are you sure that you are representing that correctly? I had heard that the apartments such as this have DirecTv channels fed into a distribution center that sent out the basic channels. So I am to understand someone could hook up the new mpeg4 HD receiver in one of these high rises and receive ALL that DirecTv has to offer?

Actually it's a pretty simple set up. All the LNB feeds run into inputs of a mulitswitch. An off-air antenna can be connected as well. Typically 16 receivers are connected to output ports. As you change channels, the correct LNB path is routed to your output port based on the "request" it gets from your receiver.

Actually it's a pretty simple set up. All the LNB feeds run into inputs of a mulitswitch. An off-air antenna can be connected as well. Typically 16 receivers are connected to output ports. As you change channels, the correct LNB path is routed to your output port based on the "request" it gets from your receiver.
So the answer to the following question is "yes" ?
"So I am to understand someone could hook up the new mpeg4 HD receiver in one of these high rises and receive ALL that DirecTv has to offer?"

Remember you are talking to a "consumer". :)

So the answer to the following question is "yes" ?
"So I am to understand someone could hook up the new mpeg4 HD receiver in one of these high rises and receive ALL that DirecTv has to offer?"

Remember you are talking to a "consumer". :)

If the dish installation and multiswitch installation supports it. Remembering that one of the disadvantages of having a "disconnected" distribution system is that any technology upgrade is a major undertaking, and some third party resellers won't bother making the necessary investment. They represent themselves as DirecTV when in fact they are not.

So the answer is maybe, maybe not.

My guess is that currently the answer is mostly NOT.

Contuinuing the La LA Land saga (legal papers being filed):

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-sp-tv22aug22,0,5677513.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

Highlights:


Football Fight Turns Political
L.A. City Council's involvement reflects the seriousness of a dispute between Time Warner Cable and the NFL Network.
By Larry Stewart, Times Staff Writer
August 22, 2006
=
Who says you can't fight City Hall? You can if you're Time Warner Cable, a division of the largest media company in the world. And the mighty NFL as well.
=
But even with City Hall on its side, NFL Network faces a difficult battle that could keep it out of 2 million cable homes in the Greater L.A. market, and 600,000 homes within the L.A. city limits.

For three years, Time Warner Cable has refused to carry the league-owned network, which launched in November 2003.

And when Time Warner Cable recently replaced Adelphia and Comcast cable in the L.A. market, it took NFL Network away from those customers who were getting it.
=
The City Council resolution asked the FCC to extend the order to restore NFL Network indefinitely.

The FCC order drew a 67-page response from Time Warner Cable, and that, in turn, generated a 24-page legal brief filed by NFL Network on Monday.

= = =

I wonder if Time Warner will spend 10's of millions, perhaps over $100 million in legal Fees fighting against America's Top Sport....

Draw your own conclusions:

DirecTV lodging rates/room/month

Universal Choice $2.50
ABC Family
A&E
American Movie Classics (AMC)
Animal Planet
Bloomberg Television
Black Entertainment (BET)
Cartoon Network
CNBC
CNN
Comedy Central
Court TV
C-SPAN
C-SPAN2
CSTV: College Sports Television
Discovery Channel
Discovery Health Channel
Headline News
The History Channel
E! Entertainment Television
Fox News Channel
FX
FUEL TV
GSN: the network for games
Lifetime
Military Channel
MSNBC
MTV
MTV2
NFL Network
National Geographic Channel
Nickelodeon
TBS
G4 videogame tv
The Learning Channel (TLC)
TNT
Sci-Fi Channel
The Science Channel
SOAPnet
Spike TV
Speed Channel
TV Land
TV One
USA Network
VH1
VH1 Classic
WE: Women’s Entertainment
The Weather Channel

A La Carte Add Ons
ESPN $3.50
ESPN/ESPN2 $3.10
ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNews $2.95
ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNews/ESPNClassic/ESPNU $2.90
NFL Network $.30
HBO Multiplex $3.50

How is it that NFL Network is part of a $2.50 package, available at 30 cents a la carte, while ESPN cost as much as $3.50???

Posted for those who doubt that NFL Network is giving their service away to satellite providers in order to leverage cable carriage.

I wonder if Time Warner will spend 10's of millions, perhaps over $100 million in legal Fees fighting against America's Top Sport....

The simple answer is yes...then they can charge the consumer an extra $3 so they can pay the legal bill to save the consumer $2. Make sense? I think not.

The simple answer is yes...then they can charge the consumer an extra $3 so they can pay the legal bill to save the consumer $2. Make sense? I think not.

The city council is WAY OUT OF BOUNDS asking the FCC to force TWC to extend NFL Network beyond the legal 30 day notice period.

And TWC was WAY OUT OF BOUNDS dropping the channel without the required notice.

I don't see how TWC accrues any legal fees. It's their right to choose what programming they offer. I think it's called the "First Amendment". There's plenty of established precident.

So when claiming that 90% of Americans have the option of SAT and all it has to offer, since we are comparing apples to apples. You make the statement that High Rises sometimes have the
option of SAT and sometimes exclusively SAT.

...
Many high rises offer DirecTV as an option to cable. A parallel DirecTV distribution system is wired through access ducts connected to a master dish on the roof. In fact, in many high rise areas, the tenant associations have exclusive bulk rate agreements with DirecTV and don't have cable available at all. How do I know ??? I used to engineer and install them!!! ...
But when asked this question...
"So I am to understand someone could hook up the new mpeg4 HD receiver in one of these high rises and receive ALL that DirecTv has to offer?"

I get a "techno-speak" answer. I ask it again and finally get what I more or less knew to be the case.

...
My guess is that currently the answer is mostly NOT.
Who has the "Credibility" problem?
SAT is NOT an option for apartments, condos or anyone without a clear SW view.

There is not one TWC stance that you do not stand with whether it be a la carte or the channels other providers provide and TWC doesn't. (NFL,ESPN2-HD,WB-HD)
Well there is one, you don't claim to be a Football Fan and TWC does. :rolleyes:

If someone is not "objective" how can they be "credible"? :confused: :confused:

So when claiming that 90% of Americans have the option of SAT and all it has to offer, since we are comparing apples to apples. You make the statement that High Rises sometimes have the
option of SAT and sometimes exclusively SAT.


But when asked this question...
"So I am to understand someone could hook up the new mpeg4 HD receiver in one of these high rises and receive ALL that DirecTv has to offer?"

I get a "techno-speak" answer. I ask it again and finally get what I more or less knew to be the case.


Who has the "Credibility" problem?
SAT is NOT an option for apartments, condos or anyone without a clear SW view.

There is not one TWC stance that you do not stand with whether it be a la carte or the channels other providers provide and TWC doesn't. (NFL,ESPN2-HD,WB-HD)
Well there is one, you don't claim to be a Football Fan and TWC does. :rolleyes:

If someone is not "objective" how can they be "credible"? :confused: :confused:

I'm just trying to be factual and honest. I'm only reinterating availability numbers that the satellite industry reports, at least to their investors.

Maybe DirecTV reports 70% coverage and Charlie reports 110% and the average of the 2 is 90%. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm just trying to be factual and honest. I'm only reinterating availability numbers that the satellite industry reports, at least to their investors.

Maybe DirecTV reports 70% coverage and Charlie reports 110% and the average of the 2 is 90%. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I would not put much "factual" stock in numbers of potential customers being passed around to investors. Logic tells me that if NY, LA, Chicago, etc has a crap load of people then they have a crap load of people that can't get SAT and are stuck with whatever cable monopoly is in their town.

Let's just say if you have a HDTV and enjoy sports that DISH may be a better fit and if you don't need HD and Shopping channels is your thing then TWC is for you. :)

I would not put much "factual" stock in numbers of potential customers being passed around to investors. Logic tells me that if NY, LA, Chicago, etc has a crap load of people then they have a crap load of people that can't get SAT and are stuck with whatever cable monopoly is in their town.

Let's just say if you have a HDTV and enjoy sports that DISH may be a better fit and if you don't need HD and Shopping channels is your thing then TWC is for you. :)

Here's some interesting numbers. It shows the percentage of households that subcribe to wired cable and/or satellite, wired cable only, ADS (alternative distribution) which is almost all satellite.

Enjoy.

http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack/Cable_and_ADS_Penetration_by_DMA.asp

P.S. There's no consistent correlation between markets which are more multi-unit dwelling intensive than those that are more suburban.

Draw your own conclusions:

DirecTV lodging rates/room/month

Universal Choice $2.50
ABC Family
A&E
American Movie Classics (AMC)
Animal Planet
Bloomberg Television
Black Entertainment (BET)
Cartoon Network
CNBC
CNN
Comedy Central
Court TV
C-SPAN
C-SPAN2
CSTV: College Sports Television
Discovery Channel
Discovery Health Channel
Headline News
The History Channel
E! Entertainment Television
Fox News Channel
FX
FUEL TV
GSN: the network for games
Lifetime
Military Channel
MSNBC
MTV
MTV2
NFL Network
National Geographic Channel
Nickelodeon
TBS
G4 videogame tv
The Learning Channel (TLC)
TNT
Sci-Fi Channel
The Science Channel
SOAPnet
Spike TV
Speed Channel
TV Land
TV One
USA Network
VH1
VH1 Classic
WE: Women’s Entertainment
The Weather Channel

A La Carte Add Ons
ESPN $3.50
ESPN/ESPN2 $3.10
ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNews $2.95
ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNews/ESPNClassic/ESPNU $2.90
NFL Network $.30
HBO Multiplex $3.50

How is it that NFL Network is part of a $2.50 package, available at 30 cents a la carte, while ESPN cost as much as $3.50???

Posted for those who doubt that NFL Network is giving their service away to satellite providers in order to leverage cable carriage.


All operators have separate rates for hotels (lodging rates) or business establishments (restauarnts, bars, etc), and in most cases those include many add-ons. NFL ST, MLB EI, Game Plan, all cost extra.

This has nothing at all to do with residential service -- although it shows that when it suits their purposes cable and satellite operators are glad to use at least a modified a la carte approach.

All operators have separate rates for hotels (lodging rates) or business establishments (restauarnts, bars, etc), and in most cases those include many add-ons. NFL ST, MLB EI, Game Plan, all cost extra.

This has nothing at all to do with residential service -- although it shows that when it suits their purposes cable and satellite operators are glad to use at least a modified a la carte approach.

I just thought it interesting how much more ESPN is than everything else combined.

P.S. There's no consistent correlation between markets which are more multi-unit dwelling intensive than those that are more suburban.

It does show that the biggest NE cities (boston,ny,phili) have below average dish penetrations. Now it might not be 100% due to multi unit dwellings but it does play a major factor. I have to chime in and say I think the 90% number is quite high. When you just think of a place like manhattan served by TW, Full of high rises. IF you don't live on then right side of the building your screwed. Then if you do there is still the issue of many building oweners which don't even alow dishes. This situation is mimicked all across NYC and similar places.

It does show that the biggest NE cities (boston,ny,phili) have below average dish penetrations. Now it might not be 100% due to multi unit dwellings but it does play a major factor. I have to chime in and say I think the 90% number is quite high. When you just think of a place like manhattan served by TW, Full of high rises. IF you don't live on then right side of the building your screwed. Then if you do there is still the issue of many building oweners which don't even alow dishes. This situation is mimicked all across NYC and similar places.

Reality Check:

Come on now, what percentage of the U.S. population do you actually think lives in high rise apartments. If you guessed 1%, I'd bet ten bucks you'd be high.

Even at that, DirecTV is relatively common in high rise buildings. Individual dishes are quite common in more contemporary apartment complexes, and at the rate they churn residents, anyone who wanted to have a dish can easily request an apartment with a southern exposure. The average tenancy in an apartment is much less than two years.

All you doubters need to do is look down on the U.S. in Google Earth to realize just how "open" the view is.

As much as you all want to bash cable for being a monopoly, your arguments are without merit. As those statics in the above link shows, satellite has taken 30% of the subscription TV market, and if that's not competition. I give up. You're all grasping at straws.

I'm not attempting to defend cable here. Just undo the "spin". :D :D :D

Even at that, DirecTV is relatively common in high rise buildings. Individual dishes are quite common in more contemporary apartment complexes, and at the rate they churn residents, anyone who wanted to have a dish can easily request an apartment with a southern exposure.
I think you already nullified the DirecTv in apartments as being an option if they can't get all the latest HD channels. Even TWC is better than a crippled SAT setup. Plus high rises or not, apartments are apartments. Even if someone has a SW window, what good does that do?


As much as you all want to bash cable for being a monopoly, your arguments are without merit. As those statistics in the above link shows, satellite has taken 30% of the subscription TV market, and if that's not competition. I give up. You're all grasping at straws.
Cable is a monopoly. Just like Ford would be a monopoly if they were the only choice for a car. You would tell everyone to take a cab or they could ride the bus or train. So somehow in your mind Ford wouldn't be a monopoly. :rolleyes:
Right now you say SAT has 30% market. What do you think it would be if SAT could offer their same receivers and service via cable (no 2-way features, just what they offer now)? If a customer could change their channel provider as easy as they can change their telephone provider. I think you would see SATs have a 90% market share. That would be a monopoly due to happy consumers.

Cables ability to easily hook a cable to a house, apartment, condo or hotel is the only reason they have the market share they have. SAT is not as easy to implement both technically and aesthetically. If it were then I would agree that cable is not a monopoly. FIOS will change cables monopoly status in the areas that it is deployed in. But until everyone that has a one cable hookup has a technically similar choice, cable will continue to be a stagnant monopoly. And continue to not compete by being uninnovative and not implement customer requested change.

Cables ability to easily hook a cable to a house, apartment, condo or hotel is the only reason they have the market share they have. SAT is not as easy to implement both technically and aesthetically. If it were then I would agree that cable is not a monopoly. FIOS will change cables monopoly status in the areas that it is deployed in. But until everyone that has a one cable hookup has a technically similar choice, cable will continue to be a stagnant monopoly. And continue to not compete by being uninnovative and not implement customer requested change.

What exactly do you mean here. I do understand what you are saying when you are talking about an apartment or hotel but with a house or condo. How is it not as easy to implement??? Do you mean b/c of how it must be facing SW??? An aesthetically b/c of how it is an eyesore??? B/c it is just as easy (if not easier) in my area to get a satelite provider to hook up a dish as it is for cable. It is the crappy HD picture that I can't stand. BTW, I am not challenging you response just inquiring for clarification. :)

What exactly do you mean here. I do understand what you are saying when you are talking about an apartment or hotel but with a house or condo. How is it not as easy to implement??? Do you mean b/c of how it must be facing SW??? An aesthetically b/c of how it is an eyesore??? B/c it is just as easy (if not easier) in my area to get a satelite provider to hook up a dish as it is for cable. It is the crappy HD picture that I can't stand. BTW, I am not challenging you response just inquiring for clarification. :)
Exactly.
Except for the crappy HD picture part.
If DISH with it's superior receivers and channels including 30 HD, could hookup to every house that TWC can in my area; TWC would NOT stand a chance.
My post isn't meant to be "SATs have it so hard", it's meant to be "SATs are different". So cable is a Monopoly with how they offer multi-channels (I use MULTI loosely with TWC). Now it won't take another cable company to kill the monopoly status. Instead any provider that can provide a LIKE service whether it be through FIBER, RF, or any technology that an apartment dweller could use to get service. Right now only a feeble mind believes that anyone that lives in an apartment or condo can get SAT even with a SW view. I only use the apartments as an obvious example, their are multitudes of people that own their on homes and can't get a clear view to the SATs without clear cutting their or neighbors yard.

All this is tied to why TWC doesn't feel it needs to deal with NFL. If every NFL fan left TWC it would hurt them VERY bad. But not everyone wants to go thru the hassle like I did. (spending $600 cutting down trees and still had to put the dish in my front yard) So TWC won't get hurt too bad with this NFL fight.
Remember, the person that says cable isn't a monopoly because of SAT, is also the same person saying DISH and DirecTv can't merge because it would be a monopoly. Which is it is DISH a SAT company or a multi-channel provider?

Exactly.
Except for the crappy HD picture part.
If DISH with it's superior receivers and channels including 30 HD, could hookup to every house that TWC can in my area; TWC would NOT stand a chance.
My post isn't meant to be "SATs have it so hard", it's meant to be "SATs are different". So cable is a Monopoly with how they offer multi-channels (I use MULTI loosely with TWC). Now it won't take another cable company to kill the monopoly status. Instead any provider that can provide a LIKE service whether it be through FIBER, RF, or any technology that an apartment dweller could use to get service. Right now only a feeble mind believes that anyone that lives in an apartment or condo can get SAT even with a SW view. I only use the apartments as an obvious example, their are multitudes of people that own their on homes and can't get a clear view to the SATs without clear cutting their or neighbors yard.

All this is tied to why TWC doesn't feel it needs to deal with NFL. If every NFL fan left TWC it would hurt them VERY bad. But not everyone wants to go thru the hassle like I did. (spending $600 cutting down trees and still had to put the dish in my front yard) So TWC won't get hurt too bad with this NFL fight.
Remember, the person that says cable isn't a monopoly because of SAT, is also the same person saying DISH and DirecTv can't merge because it would be a monopoly. Which is it is DISH a SAT company or a multi-channel provider?

Thanks for clarification and I agree completely...

Exactly.
If DISH with it's superior receivers and channels including 30 HD, could hookup to every house that TWC can in my area; TWC would NOT stand a chance.

I can have either and do not chose sat HDLite.

I can have either and do not chose sat HDLite.
I know ALL of DirecTv's HD channels are what people call HD-Lite. Although most use the word but don't really know what makes a good picture. For those that don't know it is bitrate. I don't care how many holes your Shower-Head has, if you don't have good water pressure. I would rather sacrifice a few holes for great water pressure. DISH is still working on their mpeg4 encoders and bitrates need adjusting on channels; mainly locals. But DISH is no different than TWC in my area as HDNET is the gold standard. I can't tell a difference from Discovery-HD and Equator-HD (HD-Lite) both look great even with rushing water and other fast nature shots. HD-News (also HD-Lite) is another phenomenal looking channel.

DISH has the following Resolutions...
(1280x760p)
ESPN HD
ESPN2 HD
NG HD

(1440x1080i)
HDnet Movies

(1920x1080i)
Discovery HD Theater
TNT HD
HDnet
PPV HD
HBO HD
Showtime HD
CBS HD***
Universal HD
HGTV HD
Food HD

Current E* HD Lite Channels (1280x1080i)
Ultra HD
Monsters HD
Rave HD
Equator HD
Gallery HD
Animania HD
Rush HD
HDnews
KungFu HD
FilmFest HD
Family Room HD
GamePlay HD
WorldCinema HD
Treasure HD
WorldSport HD

1440 x 1080i is also HD-Lite.

D*'s 720p channels aren't HD-Lite either looking strictly at resolution - so you can't say "ALL D* is HD-Lite"

You also forgot NFL Network which E* also carries.

I can have either and do not chose sat HDLite.

Ditto

I had the choice and I recently told Time Warner to go to hell. What a great day that was. Good riddance to crap service.

1440 x 1080i is also HD-Lite.

D*'s 720p channels aren't HD-Lite either looking strictly at resolution - so you can't say "ALL D* is HD-Lite"

You also forgot NFL Network which E* also carries.
Dooly noted.
The 1440 x 1080i channel is only that way during a free preview of NFL-HD (robbing Peter to pay Paul). It should go back to 1920 x 1080i soon.

I have read several times that all DirecTv's HD channels are HD-Lite. Oh well I guess I shouldn't believe everything I read. I should have known that after reading Posg's posts. :D

I'm still having a problem understanding how a business that loses 30% of their customers to a competing business is a monopoly.

Is Bell South a monopoly because they are the only phone provider that uses 48 volt twisted pair copper technology ??? Are they the only company to offer phone service ??? They've lost a huge chunk of business to cell providers and cable. Should they be concerned. Not according to your argument, because by your definition they don't have any competition.

I live in a modestly upscale neighborhood. There are 110 homes. Good demographics. Nobody has an obstruction to "seeing" Dish Network or DirecTV satellites. My guess from what I've seen around the neighborhood is that there are less than a dozen or so satellite subscribers. None of the twenty or so people I actually know have one. It's not lack of income or technical inability that prevents more people from choosing satellite. It's the fact that THEY JUST DON'T CARE THAT MUCH. Cable is simple and it gives them the dozen or so channels they watch.

My next door neighbor is a huge sports enthusiast. He's got at least a 60 inch plasma. He doesn't think not having NFL Network is that big a deal.

I live in a modestly upscale neighborhood. There are 110 homes. Good demographics. Nobody has an obstruction to "seeing" Dish Network or DirecTV satellites. My guess from what I've seen around the neighborhood is that there are less than a dozen or so satellite subscribers. None of the twenty or so people I actually know have one. It's not lack of income or technical inability that prevents more people from choosing satellite. It's the fact that THEY JUST DON'T CARE THAT MUCH. Cable is simple and it gives them the dozen or so channels they watch.

My next door neighbor is a huge sports enthusiast. He's got at least a 60 inch plasma. He doesn't think not having NFL Network is that big a deal.

He can't be that big of a football fan then can he?

And if the people in the area "JUST DON'T CARE THAT MUCH" then it's a moot point. They don't have any interest or awareness of the subject for it to matter to them.

I'm still having a problem understanding how a business that loses 30% of their customers to a competing business is a monopoly.
....
I think if an objective outsider reads my posts and then yours, they would notice all the points you choose to ignore.
Your weak rebuttal does not change the fact that your buddy TWC is a monopoly in everyone’s eyes except your own.
If you don't get it, you don't want to get it. (Understatement)
Maybe the 30% equals everyone that has a clear SW view in their backyard. :rolleyes: You did say SATs growth has slowed, it is not due to happy TWC customers.

I also like your post that you know a sports fan that doesn't want NFL-HD.
That settles it then, TWC has anecdotal evidence on its side. :)

Denver Fans may be starting to notice what's going on:

http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/3719936.html

No Broncos On T.V.?
No Broncos on Your TV?
Lauri Martin


Bronco fans, listen up. If you planned on watching the Broncos take on the Houston Texans this weekend, you might not be able to see it. That's because the game is only being carried on the NFL Network.

You can only get the NFL Network if you have satellite t.v. or digital cable. So, by our estimates, about 50% of Broncos fans in Colorado Springs won't be watching this weekend’s game from home. Even worse, when the Broncos rival against the Chiefs on Thanksgiving night, fans will face the same situation.

Apparently, a Denver station is allowed to air the Bronco games from the NFL Network. Seth Palansky with the network said, “There are sydication right to participating team markets.” When KKTV tried to secure the game, it was not available in this market.

If you don't have digital cable, there's still time to get it, but it'll raise your cable bill by $11a month. The NFL Network said there is a small chance that Comcast will play the Thanksgiving game on regular cable, but those negotiations are still in the works.

You can still see many of this season's games KKTV. We'll be carrying 10 of the 16 Bronco games.

... AND ...

http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1320763&secid=1

Sunday’s preseason, Thanksgiving games shown only on NFL Network

By ANDREW WINEKE and FRANK SCHWAB THE GAZETTE

Planning on watching the Broncos game at home on Sunday? If you don’t have digital cable or satellite TV, you’d better have a ticket.

The Broncos-Houston Texans game is being shown only on NFL Network, part of the “digital classic” tier on Comcast (formerly Adelphia). Denver Fox affiliate KDVR/Channel 31 is broadcasting the game, but it won’t be available over the air in Colorado Springs unless you have a dish.

Sunday’s matchup is just a preseason game. Not the end of the world.

The Broncos-Kansas City Chiefs game on Thanksgiving, however, is also on NFL Network — and only NFL Network.

That may make for a lot of unhappy Broncos fans who are used to seeing the games for free, or, at worst, on basic cable. Instead, if your cable box doesn’t get Channel 177, you don’t get NFL Network. Or the Broncos.
For many years, fans knew that they had to pay for tickets to attend games, but watching on TV was free, unless there was a blackout because the game didn’t sell out.

The games are a commercial product, though, and the NFL can sell them for whatever the market will bear.

Cable and satellite companies are in the football business, too, and they recognize there’s lots of money to be made showcasing America’s most popular sport. ESPN started the NFL’s move to cable in 1987 when it carried its first game.

This business stuff might not matter to fans focused on the action on the field, but it has a direct impact on where you can watch the games — and how much you’ll pay to do it.

“The NFL Network is available on the digital tier for those customers interested in watching the games,” said Comcast spokeswoman Cindy Parsons.

NFL Network is on Comcast’s digital package because Comcast didn’t have any channels available in its basic cable bandwidth, NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky said. Palansky said NFL Network has discussed with Comcast moving to basic cable when another channel’s contract is up, or when Comcast has the capacity to add another channel.
“We believe we should be distributed to everyone,” said Palansky, who didn’t know if the network will be on basic cable by Thanksgiving. “The cable company determines who goes where. We have limited control after signing the contract.”

It’s not as if NFL games are too expensive for cable companies, Palansky said. The NFL Network charges cable providers about $10 per customer annually, or a little more than 83 cents a month, Palansky said. The Wall Street Journal reported in April that ESPN charges cable companies more than $2.50 per customer per month.

“We’re nowhere near in the top echelon of sports networks,” Palansky said.

Comcast’s Parsons would not comment on the availability of channels or the price.

Parsons wouldn’t disclose how many digital cable customers Comcast has in Colorado Springs, but she said the number is rising.

NFL Network is also on DirecTV’s Total Choice package, which costs $44.99 a month, or Dish Network’s America’s Top 60 package for $29.99 a month.

Switching to Comcast’s digital classic costs $10.99 a month in addition to the $17.65 rate for basic or the $48.29 fee for standard cable subscriptions.
The digital cable conundrum hasn’t occurred before because this is the first season NFL Network has carried live games, as opposed to the highlights packages and taped classic games that made up its schedule in the past.

The league passed up several hundred million dollars in rights fees to this year’s eight games scheduled for NFL Network.

The network hopes showing live games brings in more viewers. The NFL could then use its leverage to charge higher fees to Comcast and other television providers.

Putting NFL Network on digital cable has disadvantages for Comcast. It has a block of advertising time each hour on the network and a bigger audience would mean higher ad rates.

Having the NFL Network on a higher tier can also be beneficial, however. Bruce McGregor, who works for Current Analysis, Inc. and analyzes digital home services and pricing, said television providers can promote more expensive packages if they include valuable programming like NFL Network.

“The cable companies like it because they can get people to upgrade to higher tiers,” McGregor said. “For example, if someone likes ‘The Sopranos,’ they have to get HBO.”

League rules stipulate the cable network must let overthe-air stations in the home cities of the participating teams bid to broadcast the game. That’s why Sunday’s game is on KDVR in Denver.

The NFL prohibits cable networks from selling regularseason game rights to overthe-air stations in “secondary markets” such as Colorado Springs, league spokesman Dan Masonson said.

“ESPN is paying for the game package so it wouldn’t make sense to have it on a different channel in another market” he said.

As if this isn’t confusing enough, the rules are different for preseason games. During the preseason, both Denver and Colorado Springs are considered the Broncos’ home market.

That’s why Colorado Springs gets some preseason games over the air and other Colorado markets such as Grand Junction do not, Broncos spokesman Jim Saccomano said.

When a national cable network such as NFL Network picks up a preseason game, however, the usual national cable network rules apply.

So the Broncos are stuck, even this Sunday, on digital cable or satellite in Colorado Springs.

Things could be worse.

In Woodland Park, U.S. Cable doesn’t offer the NFL Network. In Falcon, Falcon Broadband customers are also out of luck. Same with Charter Communications customers on Fort Carson.

I think if an objective outsider reads my posts and then yours, they would notice all the points you choose to ignore.
Your weak rebuttal does not change the fact that your buddy TWC is a monopoly in everyone’s eyes except your own.
If you don't get it, you don't want to get it. (Understatement)
Maybe the 30% equals everyone that has a clear SW view in their backyard. :rolleyes: You did say SATs growth has slowed, it is not due to happy TWC customers.

I also like your post that you know a sports fan that doesn't want NFL-HD.
That settles it then, TWC has anecdotal evidence on its side. :)

Not so long ago in the little town of Smallville, there was only one pizza delivery shop. Lex's Pizza had an agreement with the town to pay a portion of his receipts in exchange for being allowed to drive the town's streets to deliver pizzas. Lex agreed to deliver pizza to anybody in town.

People became unhappy with Lex's pizza over time because Lex thought pepperoni was too exensive, so he didn't offer it. But he was the only pizza shop that delivered pizza by driving a pizzamobile through the streets Smallville.

Just outside of Smallville, the Kent's had a farm, and a son named Clark (or was it Charlie, doesn't matter) who said "The hell with paying the town. We'll just make pizzas here on the farm I'll just fly them to people's houses, and even not use the streets. I'll offer pepperoni and tofu and bean sprouts and all kinds of toppings that Lex doesn't offer.

Now people had a choice. Lex's Pizza or Clark's Pie In The Sky. There was just one small problem. Some of the residents had planted Kryptonite trees in their yards, and Clark was allergic to Kryptonite, and couldn't deliver pizzas to those homes.

Because Clark's couldn't deliver pizza to everybody, Lex added the slogan "Lex's Pizza, your Only choice for pizza in Smallville". Lex argued that it really wasn't true pizza delivery because pizza HAD to be delivered in a car. Everybody laughed because they knew that wasn't true. They were happily enjoying their pepperoni pizza from Pie In The Sky watching NFL Network on Thursday nights. Except the people who had Kryptonite trees in their yards, or lived in the Kryptonite Arms High Rise. They kept trying to convince Lex to offer pepperoni, but Lex didn't think he needed to. After all, he had a monopoly.