I'd say 80% of my hi-rise can't get a dish because even though everyone has a balcony, they either don't face south, or if they do, like me, there is a hi-rise right across the street that blocks the LOS so only the top couple southern exposure floors have a LOS.

I'd get a dish in a second if it wasn't for this. There are many in the same predicament in my area, giving Comcast a monopoly over a large segment of the population.

You'll find the same pattern for high-rises in most major metro areas.

Shall I continue the story with the "pizza by the slice" chapter ???

Shall I continue the story with the "pizza by the slice" chapter ???
Your story is lame and does not counter any of the legitimate arguements made in previous post.

My neighbor is a huge comic book fan and thinks your post is lame too. :D

Your story is lame and does not counter any of the legitimate arguements made in previous post.

My neighbor is a huge comic book fan and thinks your post is lame too. :D

I give up. I thought I could try to bring a little humor to the debate, but alas, to no avail. I guess our definitions of what a competitor is, and what a monopoly is, are so far apart that any further discussion is pointless.

I give up. I thought I could try to bring a little humor to the debate, but alas, to no avail. I guess our definitions of what a competitor is, and what a monopoly is, are so far apart that any further discussion is pointless.
Don't give up. Your post did bring humor indirectly, my replies to your post usually make me laugh. :D

I believe my analogy of Ford being the only car (cable) and the option of riding the bus (sat) made the point I was trying to make.
Cable and SAT are different.

But your story had more character development. :D

I give up. I thought I could try to bring a little humor to the debate, but alas, to no avail. I guess our definitions of what a competitor is, and what a monopoly is, are so far apart that any further discussion is pointless.

It might have helped the point if you hadn't picked an egomaniacal villain to play the part of TWC!

You forgot the part about Lex placating the 20% that demanded pepperoni by including it on every pie. That way it is only $1.50 per pie instead of $3.50 so the original $10 pie is now $11.50. Then the same with the 5% that wanted green peppers, etc. etc.

Now, Lex is charging $39.99 per pizza and putting all toppings on every one.

"Just pick off what you don't like - but hey, you're getting a $55.00 pizza for only $39.99 so you're saving a fortune!"

All the citizens are irate that pizza has become so expensive (even Clark is screwing his customers the same way - the "American Way" part of the creedo allows this) yet every ingredient added by one company is followed by demands from a handful of the other's customers to follow suit. All the citizens of Smallville agree that 90% of what they're paying for is crap, but they'll continue to demand another ingredient knowing full well it will be accompanied by 9 more they don't want.

What's really comical is the handful perpetuating the problem who'll insist, even as prices continue to steadily rise, that offering individual toppings will be extremely costly. Pepperoni is up to $3.00 per pie in volume, and if offered as an option would be $9.00. :eek: Wouldn't you rather have a $75 pie with 45 toppings than a $19.00 pie with only one?

Daily Planet Headlines:
Chapter 2: "Pork Producers say: No Pork Rinds, No Pepperoni"
Chapter 3: "Clark and Lex now own 92% of all Smallville's Produce and Livestock farms - join forces to purchase Metropolis Cola"
Chapter 4: "Lex Pizza finished? Clark gambles replacing oregano with tobacco - and it's a winner!"
Chapter 5: "Lex bounces back with success of Beefer Reefer pizza pie - but where's the beef?"

;)

Don't give up. Your post did bring humor indirectly, my replies to your post usually make me laugh. :D

I believe my analogy of Ford being the only car (cable) and the option of riding the bus (sat) made the point I was trying to make.
Cable and SAT are different.

But your story had more character development. :D

If my choice is driving my own car (cable) (even if it is a Ford :mad: :mad: :mad: ) or riding the bus (sat) (your words, not mine), I'll settle for the Ford.

You forgot the part about Lex placating the 20% that demanded pepperoni by including it on every pie. That way it is only $1.50 per pie instead of $3.50 so the original $10 pie is now $11.50. Then the same with the 5% that wanted green peppers, etc. etc.

Now, Lex is charging $39.99 per pizza and putting all toppings on every one.

"Just pick off what you don't like - but hey, you're getting a $55.00 pizza for only $39.99 so you're saving a fortune!"

All the citizens are irate that pizza has become so expensive (even Clark is screwing his customers the same way - the "American Way" part of the creedo allows this) yet every ingredient added by one company is followed by demands from a handful of the other's customers to follow suit. All the citizens of Smallville agree that 90% of what they're paying for is crap, but they'll continue to demand another ingredient knowing full well it will be accompanied by 9 more they don't want.

What's really comical is the handful perpetuating the problem who'll insist, even as prices continue to steadily rise, that offering individual toppings will be extremely costly. Pepperoni is up to $3.00 per pie in volume, and if offered as an option would be $9.00. :eek: Wouldn't you rather have a $75 pie with 45 toppings than a $19.00 pie with only one?

Daily Planet Headlines:
Chapter 2: "Pork Producers say: No Pork Rinds, No Pepperoni"
Chapter 3: "Clark and Lex now own 92% of all Smallville's Produce and Livestock farms - join forces to purchase Metropolis Cola"
Chapter 4: "Lex Pizza finished? Clark gambles replacing oregano with tobacco - and it's a winner!"
Chapter 5: "Lex bounces back with success of Beefer Reefer pizza pie - but where's the beef?"

;)

So maybe the solution is Personal Pan Pizza or pizza by the slice with your choice of toppings, sort of pizza a la carte.

Problem is the American Dairy Association has put the pizza industry on notice that unless they put extra cheese on every pizza, their entire cheese supply will be cut off !!!!

P.S. Cheese prices just increased 350%. But they can justify it because they have just added 8 ounces of REAL milk to their channel, oops, :rolleyes: i mean product.

P.P.S.

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way" is apparently now politically incorrect. The studio excluded it from the latest Superman movie because they were concerned that "American Way" might hurt overseas ticket sales. The world we live in !!!!!!!!

It might have helped the point if you hadn't picked an egomaniacal villain to play the part of TWC!

Any similarities to an actual person, place, business, or event is purely coincidental. ;) ;) ;)

If you want parallels, they wouldn't be selling pizzas. You'd have to look at Superman2. The network owners would be General Zod, DBS is Zod's chick sidekick, and cable is the big guy that's kind of dimwitted. NFL Network is Lex just trying to get his piece of the pie. The consumer is the President - begrudgingly kneeling down and kissing Zod's hand. John McCain is Superman - without his powers - getting his ass kicked by the rest of the Government played by the neanderthal at the diner.

If you want parallels, they wouldn't be selling pizzas. You'd have to look at Superman2. The network owners would be General Zod, DBS is Zod's chick sidekick, and cable is the big guy that's kind of dimwitted. NFL Network is Lex just trying to get his piece of the pie. The consumer is the President - begrudgingly kneeling down and kissing Zod's hand. John McCain is Superman - without his powers - getting his ass kicked by the rest of the Government played by the neanderthal at the diner.

Four and a half Stars !!!!

More on the popularity of America's Sport (in this case the NFL on ESPN):

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003052513


"Football Lifts All Ad-Sales Boats for ESPN/ABC

John Consoli

AUGUST 23, 2006 -

ESPN is virtually sold out of its NFL Monday Night Football commercial inventory and its Saturday night ABC college football ad units for the upcoming season, and the Sept. 11 NFL preview issue of ESPN, The Magazine will be its largest ad revenue-producing issue ever with 110 pages of advertising that will bring in more than $10 million.

"Prime-time Monday Night Football on ESPN and Saturday night college football on ABC has resonated with advertisers," said Ed Erhardt, president of ESPN ABC Sports Customer Marketing and Sales, who oversees sports programming sales for both ESPN and ABC. "And the heavy demand has allowed us to price it very aggressively at top of the market cost-per-thousand increases across all of our platforms."

=

Erhardt said at this time last year, Sunday Night Football, albeit with more units available to sell, was about 90 percent sold out for the season.

====

*** Considering that Football (particularly the NFL) provides the #1 TV Sport, the Top Video game (MADDEN) sales year-after-year and is also the number one Sports Package (NFL:ST) by a wide margin (both in subscribers and dollars) it's not that hard to reason that the only thing Cable wants the NFL Network in Digital Tiers and/or Sports Packages for is that they can force this vast majority of Sports Fans into paying extra to make themselves a ton of money and getting these Fans to pay for many Sports channels they don't want.

Cable is definitely not interested in providing the majority of their subscribers with what they want or they'd provide the NFL Network for everybody. Their only goal is to make more money for themselves, period - this is opposite of the NFL which both wants make money for themselves and also provide Fans more of what they want.

I'm beginning to think that Cable is basically saying to most of the the public, " We're going to save you from yourselves - getting you to cut back on your Football obsession by making it cost more ! "

*** Considering that Football (particularly the NFL) provides the Top Video game (MADDEN) sales year-after-year and is also the number one Sports Package (NFL:ST) by a wide margin (both in subscribers and dollars) it's not that hard to reason that the only thing Cable wants the NFL Network in Digital Tiers and/or Sports Packages for is that they can force this vast majority of Sports Fans into paying extra to make themselves a ton of money and getting these Fans to pay for many Sports channels they don't want.

Cable is definitely not interested in providing the majority of their subscribers with what they want or they'd provide the NFL Network for everybody. Their only goal is to make more money for themselves, period - this is opposite of the NFL which both wants make money for themselves and also provide Fans more of what they want.

Those poor sports fans having to pay extra for those "many sports channels they don't want".

These are two of the dumbest paragraphs I've ever read. Now I'm really confused. I don't know who I'd rather have looking out for me, Bill O'Reilly, my greedy cable company, or the warm and fuzzy NFL. Very puzzling. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Those poor sports fans having to pay extra for those "many sports channels they don't want".

These are two of the dumbest paragraphs I've ever read. Now I'm really confused. I don't know who I'd rather have looking out for me, Bill O'Reilly, my greedy cable company, or the warm and fuzzy NFL. Very puzzling. :confused: :confused: :confused:

What don't you understand ?

From what I've read, Cable Sports Package sales went up at least 25% after they added the NFL Network. Clearly many are paying just to get the NFL Network. I wonder what the jump was for Digital Cable Subscribers ?

When it comes to the NFL, clearly whatever they offer, the public wants ! There is no debate. Shunting it off to some extra cost Package, Cable was bound to cause consternation as demonstrated here and across the Country.

There's no confusion for anyone but the minority in this Country that don't obsess about Football. Perhaps if you joined the 10's of millions of people addicted to Fantasy Football (again, no Sport comes close), you'd get a clue !

In what's got to be the most monumental dumb comment ever made, you actually think most people would choose O''Reilly or their Cable company, over the NFL ?

Everybody's stunned !

Most may complain about the rising costs of NFL programming but the public, with some notable grumbling, has clearly gone along with it - wanting more and more. "IF' the TV Ratings ever go down as significantly as they have in other Sports, then the NFL will be in trouble, but the consensus now is that they're are more than holding their own.

If my choice is driving my own car (cable) (even if it is a Ford :mad: :mad: :mad: ) or riding the bus (sat) (your words, not mine), I'll settle for the Ford.
Yea, but the car doesn't have AC or Heat, NO radio, only 1st gear works, and the seat is stuffed with gravel.

The point which you so cleverly keep avoiding is the fact that the car and the bus will both get you to where you want to go, but are not the same technology.

If a competitor were allowed to use the existing cable infrastructure like the Telcos do with phone lines, TWC would be out of the channel business in no time.

I love SAT but it can't truly compete with cable since it can't be received by a high enough percentage of potential customers.
Hence, CABLE IS A MONOPOLY !!!!

What don't you understand ?

From what I've read, Cable Sports Package sales went up at least 25% after they added the NFL Network. Clearly many are paying just to get the NFL Network. I wonder what the jump was for Digital Cable Subscribers ?
...
Don't let Posg fool you. He doesn't want TWC to get a sports package, he wants whatever TWC wants. If TWC changed their stance tomorrow, he would support it all the way.
If SAT moved all their sports channels to a Sports tier, do you think he would give them one second of praise. NO.
There is NOT one TWC mis-step, NOT one flaw in their armor, NOT one blemish in their character as far as Posg is concerned.
If TWC started charging 99cent a minute for support, Posg would be the first to justify it with another pizza story. :(

My neighbor loves pizza, but still thinks TWC sucks. :)

Yea, but the car doesn't have AC or Heat, NO radio, only 1st gear works, and the seat is stuffed with gravel.

The point which you so cleverly keep avoiding is the fact that the car and the bus will both get you to where you want to go, but are not the same technology.

If a competitor were allowed to use the existing cable infrastructure like the Telcos do with phone lines, TWC would be out of the channel business in no time.

I love SAT but it can't truly compete with cable since it can't be received by a high enough percentage of potential customers.
Hence, CABLE IS A MONOPOLY !!!!

When Ford starts promoting the advantages of driving a Ford over riding a bus, then maybe I'll buy into your argument. Neither Ford or GM's current problems are related to competition from buses. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Don't let Posg fool you. He doesn't want TWC to get a sports package, he wants whatever TWC wants.

well there's nothing wrong with that. Even I want what TWC wants.

That is ... to be given lots of cash and not have to do much in return.

Don't let Posg fool you. He doesn't want TWC to get a sports package, he wants whatever TWC wants. If TWC changed their stance tomorrow, he would support it all the way.
If SAT moved all their sports channels to a Sports tier, do you think he would give them one second of praise. NO.
There is NOT one TWC mis-step, NOT one flaw in their armor, NOT one blemish in their character as far as Posg is concerned.
If TWC started charging 99cent a minute for support, Posg would be the first to justify it with another pizza story. :(

My neighbor loves pizza, but still thinks TWC sucks. :)

You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong !!! I DO want TWC and Dish Network and everybody else to have a sports package that's an optional service, and have it include NFL Network.

I guess what I would like to see is all the major carriers get deals for all the sports channels they can and if they have to put them in a tier and sell them to their customers that way. For the sports fanatic, they will pay the price to have those channels if that means they get to see more games. At least from a college standpoint. It is just like paying for the Gameplan or Full Court packages +. In my Cox market, we have NFL network, but not the HD channel, not ESPN2 HD, not the 3 Fox College Sports channels, CSTV, ESPNU, and Mtn. networks. Next year will be a Big 10 channel etc. I would be willing to pay slightly more if I can guarantee myself that I could see whatever game was on TV no matter what. I think others would pay for it as well. Saves me from having to go to the bar to try an find my local team.

I just think that if the carriers would just sign agreements and be able to get it out to the customers, it is a win/win on both sides. They can charge more to make money and the channels get carriage. As more and more individual channels come out for different college conferences and pro teams, the Full Court and Gameplan packages become more limited and the need to have those packages would not be needed. If the carriers and channel holders would get off their high horses and just make a deal, the die hard fans will do what they can to get the channels they need. This whole spat with the NFL network and cable carriers is over a niche market--Sports. There are those who are die hard sports fans and those who watch very little or no sports. All these channels could be marketed a lot differently and everybody would stand to make a lot more money and even die hard sports fan could save a little money. I'm not really making any sense anymore, but if you are actually taking the time to read this, hopefully you get my drift.

I guess what I would like to see is all the major carriers get deals for all the sports channels they can and if they have to put them in a tier and sell them to their customers that way. For the sports fanatic, they will pay the price to have those channels if that means they get to see more games. At least from a college standpoint. It is just like paying for the Gameplan or Full Court packages +. In my Cox market, we have NFL network, but not the HD channel, not ESPN2 HD, not the 3 Fox College Sports channels, CSTV, ESPNU, and Mtn. networks. Next year will be a Big 10 channel etc. I would be willing to pay slightly more if I can guarantee myself that I could see whatever game was on TV no matter what. I think others would pay for it as well. Saves me from having to go to the bar to try an find my local team.

I just think that if the carriers would just sign agreements and be able to get it out to the customers, it is a win/win on both sides. They can charge more to make money and the channels get carriage. As more and more individual channels come out for different college conferences and pro teams, the Full Court and Gameplan packages become more limited and the need to have those packages would not be needed. If the carriers and channel holders would get off their high horses and just make a deal, the die hard fans will do what they can to get the channels they need. This whole spat with the NFL network and cable carriers is over a niche market--Sports. There are those who are die hard sports fans and those who watch very little or no sports. All these channels could be marketed a lot differently and everybody would stand to make a lot more money and even die hard sports fan could save a little money. I'm not really making any sense anymore, but if you are actually taking the time to read this, hopefully you get my drift.

You are making PERFECT sense. Therefore I only have one word of advice: DUCK !!!!

I don't think the sports fan is any more a "niche" worthy of a separate tier than the "Science fan", "News fan" or "Animation fan". Fox News, at the next negotiations, will get just about what the NFL Network is asking for - and it will represent an increase even larger than the NFL's recent hike. Will the cablecos move them to a tier, or will they agree to keep them in expanded basic?

I don't think the sports fan is any more a "niche" worthy of a separate tier than the "Science fan", "News fan" or "Animation fan". Fox News, at the next negotiations, will get just about what the NFL Network is asking for - and it will represent an increase even larger than the NFL's recent hike. Will the cablecos move them to a tier, or will they agree to keep them in expanded basic?

I agree entirely that we need a half a dozen "neighborhoods" of specialty channels if that's what you're saying.

There seems to be a misconception that of all the possible tiers that Sports fans are Rich and would all subscribe to what ever we had to see sports.
I have lots of die-hard football friends that don't have NFL ST or Game Plan. I would of course enjoy the Network games and head out for the games I couldn't get. I doubt their will ever be Redskins Tier. So it’s not a foregone conclusion that a Sports Tier would even be successful for anyone but TWC, since they would obviously charge more than their cost.

Cable is definitely not interested in providing the majority of their subscribers with what they want or they'd provide the NFL Network for everybody. Their only goal is to make more money for themselves, period - this is opposite of the NFL which both wants make money for themselves and also provide Fans more of what they want.


This is just nonsense. If the NFL wanted to provide sports fans with "more of what they want", they would have made those eight extra games available through a fully distributed network. Period.

As for the idea that the majority of subscribers want this channel...well, that is also most likely wrong. Like pretty much everything on television today, those football games will be considered a hugely successful ratings draw, even though the majority of TV viewers will never bother to watch. Remember that a 10 rating (which is considered good for broadcast networks, let alone cable) means that 90% of households are *not* watching. So a program (whether football, some other sport, or general entertainment like "Lost" or "CSI") can be quite successful despite the fact that the majority of viewers will never watch any particular choice.

I don't think the sports fan is any more a "niche" worthy of a separate tier than the "Science fan", "News fan" or "Animation fan". Fox News, at the next negotiations, will get just about what the NFL Network is asking for - and it will represent an increase even larger than the NFL's recent hike. Will the cablecos move them to a tier, or will they agree to keep them in expanded basic?

The only reason that sports is being treated as more of a "niche" than science fiction, news, or animation is the cost of the channels. ESPN alone racks up higher montly subscription fees than do Sci Fi, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney, CNN/Headline, and Fox News combined. When you add in the other sports channels that are looking for huge fees (the regional FSNs, whatever OLN now calls itself, the 20 million ESPN spinoffs, regional nets like YES, and now NFL Network), I suspect that the sports channels may make up over half of the per-subscriber fees associated with *all* basic cable networks. And that is what has many people upset.

If ESPN, NFL Network, FSN, etc, were priced comparably to other basic networks, this debate wouldn't be going on, and TW would be falling over itself to offer NFL Network at 30 cents per subscriber (or whatever).

The only reason that sports is being treated as more of a "niche" than science fiction, news, or animation is the cost of the channels. ESPN alone racks up higher montly subscription fees than do Sci Fi, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney, CNN/Headline, and Fox News combined. When you add in the other sports channels that are looking for huge fees (the regional FSNs, whatever OLN now calls itself, the 20 million ESPN spinoffs, regional nets like YES, and now NFL Network), I suspect that the sports channels may make up over half of the per-subscriber fees associated with *all* basic cable networks. And that is what has many people upset.

If ESPN, NFL Network, FSN, etc, were priced comparably to other basic networks, this debate wouldn't be going on, and TW would be falling over itself to offer NFL Network at 30 cents per subscriber (or whatever).

Outside of regional areas that may have a ridiculous RSN fee, sports don't make up close to half the carriage fees. Yes, ESPN costs as much as half a dozen combined - but we're getting 50 - 75 forced pay channels in our subscriptions. It makes no sense to whine about $3.00 ESPN or $0.85 NFL Network and completely ignore the $20 going to other channels we don't watch. $0.20 for a crap channel doesn't become a great bargain just because you bundle 19 more $0.20 crap channels - it's just $4.00 worth of crap.

.... Remember that a 10 rating (which is considered good for broadcast networks, let alone cable) means that 90% of households are *not* watching. So a program (whether football, some other sport, or general entertainment like "Lost" or "CSI") can be quite successful despite the fact that the majority of viewers will never watch any particular choice.

And remember this: there are no other programming choices were advertisers feel DVR/TiVo-free like sports. And there is nothing else that, at least in the eyes of those on Madison Avenue, delivers a young male audience as efficiently.

So beer, shaving, male clothing, automobile, gaming, action movie advertisers, and many others pay premium rates for live sports.

And by the way, cable and satellite providers also sell spots in those games -- and charge premium rates.

I stumbled across this trolling around the cable tech sites last night and got a chuckle out of it because of our recent discussion of pepperoni pizza.

"Unless we start sending hot pepperoni pizzas [over the Internet] given the profiles in growth we see no reason to go fiber all the way to the home," says Mike LaJoie, CTO of Time Warner's cable division.

It's not clear how a pepperoni pizza might clog the Internet, though downloading pizzas would certainly become a killer app.

If a cableco starts taking over the pizza industry, it better be Cablevision or some other NY-based company. Even pizzerias in Italy can't make a pizza like a New Yorker.

If a cableco starts taking over the pizza industry, it better be Cablevision or some other NY-based company. Even pizzerias in Italy can't make a pizza like a New Yorker.

Folks from Chicago might take exception. ;) ;) ;)

Apples and Oranges - that's more like a pizza casserole. If you can't fold it, it ain't pizza. :)

I stumbled across this trolling around the cable tech sites last night and got a chuckle out of it because of our recent discussion of pepperoni pizza.

"Unless we start sending hot pepperoni pizzas [over the Internet] given the profiles in growth we see no reason to go fiber all the way to the home," says Mike LaJoie, CTO of Time Warner's cable division.

It's not clear how a pepperoni pizza might clog the Internet, though downloading pizzas would certainly become a killer app.
That proves you are definitely on the same page with TWC.
What talking points did TWC give you for today ? :D

That proves you are definitely on the same page with TWC.
What talking points did TWC give you for today ? :D

The TWC talking point today is that an obsolete satellite dish makes a great pizza pan !!!

Denver seems to be a Hot Spot:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_4943632,00.html

Scrimmage begins over NFL viewers

By Joyzelle Davis, Rocky Mountain News
August 25, 2006

Dish Network drafted Broncos quarterback Jake Plummer. Qwest grabbed University of Colorado coach Dan Hawkins.
The imminent kickoff of football season traditionally marks a showdown between pay-TV providers as they pit their pigskin programming against each other in a scramble to win subscribers. This year Qwest and EchoStar's Dish have escalated their marketing campaigns.

Qwest for weeks has run a series of TV ads with Hawkins and other football luminaries touting the telco's relationship with DirecTV, the exclusive provider of football juggernaut Sunday Ticket. Dish this week launched a nationwide ad campaign that positions the satellite-TV operator as the low-cost option for fans who want the NFL Network. Local spots starring Plummer were taped at Broncos training camp on Thursday and are set to run early next month, said EchoStar spokeswoman Cory Vasquez.

Football is "the holy grail of sports programming," said Jimmy Schaeffler, chairman of cable research firm The Carmel Group. "Customers will switch because of it."

Douglas County-based Dish is also trying to capitalize on a dispute between Time Warner and the NFL that could leave millions of former Adelphia customers without the NFL Network.

The league launched the NFL Network in 2003 with a 24-hour lineup of interviews, highlights and footage of past games. For the first time this year, it will carry Thursday and Saturday prime time games live.

This is only the second season that EchoStar, which has nearly 12.5 million subscribers, has carried the NFL Network. The network reaches 71 million homes, including subscribers to Comcast's digital cable service in Colorado.

Time Warner is the nation's only major cable operator that doesn't carry the NFL Network,. When it acquired Adelphia's systems earlier this month in a complex swap with Comcast, Time Warner immediately took the channel away from the Adelphia and Comcast customers who were getting it.

The NFL cried foul, arguing that the move violated Federal Communications Commission rules that require operators to give subscribers 30 days' notice of changes to channel lineups. The FCC agreed and ordered the channel reinstated, but it could get dropped again if the NFL Network and Time Warner don't reach a carriage deal by Sept. 3.

In the meantime, EchoStar's making sure people in Time Warner markets know they could see the NFL Network through Dish. The company launched a nationwide ad campaign featuring New York Giants running back Tiki Barber. It also is targeting Dallas customers with Cowboys quarterback Drew Bledsoe and Milwaukee viewers with Green Bay Packers defensive end Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila.

Qwest doesn't currently offer its own video service outside of a handful of markets, but its reselling agreement with DirecTV is a central part of Qwest's ad campaign heading into the official start of the NFL season. Satellite provider DirecTV offers NFL Network as part of its entry-level package, thought it's best known among football fans for its Sunday Ticket package.

The exclusive deal with the NFL gives DirecTV rights to 14 games a week from outside a viewer's local markets, meaning it's often the only way for Denver transplants to see their hometown teams play.

Laura Sankey, Qwest's vice president for marketing and advertising, said the Denver-based telco decided to run with football-themed ads after customer research indicated that more than 50 percent of Americans described themselves as "passionate" about football.

Steve Sander, sports marketing and advertising principal at Pure Brand Communications, agreed that football has a national appeal in a way that no other sport can replicate.

"The sport of football in general has so much more power in terms of motivating people," he said.

==

*** 'Gee' , you'd think that Football was just another meaningless Sport, according to some around here.

Laura Sankey, Qwest's vice president for marketing and advertising, said the Denver-based telco decided to run with football-themed ads after customer research indicated that more than 50 percent of Americans described themselves as "passionate" about football.

Given that 50 percent claim they're passionate, one would think that the biggest football event of the year (super bowl) could pull better than a 40 rating. :confused: :confused: :confused:

If a cableco starts taking over the pizza industry, it better be Cablevision or some other NY-based company. Even pizzerias in Italy can't make a pizza like a New Yorker.


Growing up in the New Jersey suburbs, an hour and fifteen minutes out of downtown Manhattan, this POV is 110% CORRECT!!

Don't let one midwestern dope try to steer you differently(just kidding), the Tri-state area of NY, NJ, and Conn have the best pizza, PERIOD!!

Living out in NW PA, people have no clue as to what good pizza is.

They think it is Pizza Hut, or Dominoes.

Damn shame.

Now back to on topic of the thread.

A la Carte channels PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Given that 50 percent claim they're passionate, one would think that the biggest football event of the year (super bowl) could pull better than a 40 rating. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Household numbers don't factor in all the guests. I don't know many people that watch the Super Bowl alone (or only with their immediate family).

Given that 50 percent claim they're passionate, one would think that the biggest football event of the year (super bowl) could pull better than a 40 rating. :confused: :confused: :confused:
What he said.
Nice try though. :)

Given that 50 percent claim they're passionate, one would think that the biggest football event of the year (super bowl) could pull better than a 40 rating. :confused: :confused: :confused:

You do know that many, perhaps most, people attend Super Bowl parties ?

The ones I've been to have anywhere from 10 to 50 people. But around here, there's mega-parties at Hotels and Banquet rooms that hold 100's. I went to one at a Marriott that had 1,200 people back in the late 80's. That one is still popular. Too noisy and too much for me to do again. All these groups of people are not sitting in their own homes watching the game. This would certainly put a dent in Ratings.

* Was looking for my old Super Bowl party ticket so it took me a couple of minutes to respond. I was #926 of 1,200 sold. The worst thing about it was the local ABC channel 27 News crew that was there kept interviewing Fans during the game and they used those older, extremely bright, lights that nearly blinded any one that caught the light in their eyes - especially in a dim/dark room.

EVEN I GO TO SUPER BOWL PARTIES. I go for the food and the fun. The game is usually just an excuse for a big drunken brawl on a cold winter Sunday afternoon. I can live with that.

But just because I attend a Super Bowl party doesn't make me a passionate fan. If half of the people you speak of at these parties were at home, over half would probably not watch the game. Hell, half of them at these parties don't watch the games.

Everybody does turn their eyes to the TV's when the commercials come on.

Growing up in the New Jersey suburbs, an hour and fifteen minutes out of downtown Manhattan, this POV is 110% CORRECT!!

Don't let one midwestern dope try to steer you differently(just kidding), the Tri-state area of NY, NJ, and Conn have the best pizza, PERIOD!!

Living out in NW PA, people have no clue as to what good pizza is.

They think it is Pizza Hut, or Dominoes.

Damn shame.

Now back to on topic of the thread.

A la Carte channels PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't claim to either be from the midwest or think Chicago pizza is better than New York pizza. I just said the people from Chicago might disagree.

Didn't Pizza Hut start in Kansas. What in the hell does anybody from Kansas know about pizza. They need to stick to Bar-B-Que.

But maybe we need to start a Food Network thread. Hmmm :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

...
But just because I attend a Super Bowl party doesn't make me a passionate fan. If half of the people you speak of at these parties were at home, over half would probably not watch the game. Hell, half of them at these parties don't watch the games.
The point is that the Super Bowl gets the highest rating of the year and on top of that a huge number of viewers can't be tallied because of the parties and bar specials. So was your point bringing up the Super Bowl ratings supposed to support one of your arguments? ;)

Everybody does turn their eyes to the TV's when the commercials come on.
That's the only reason they track ratings anyway. NFL is doing that right if nothing else.

My prediction is that there will be a lot of Super Bowl parties in NC this year. Hopefully my Skins will be there but more than likely the Panthers.

I don't care who goes, as long as the Steelers win again. ;)

I'm still wondering why Comcast has the NFL Network on 2 channels here (180 and 275).

I don't care who goes, as long as the Steelers win again. ;)
Nope, once Al figures out that Walker should be QB instead of Brooks, watch out for the Raiders. :)

I'm still wondering why Comcast has the NFL Network on 2 channels here (180 and 275).

One might be the HD feed.

One might be the HD feed.


Nope - they are both SD. My Comcast doesn't have a dedicated NFL-HD channel.

Nope - they are both SD. My Comcast doesn't have a dedicated NFL-HD channel.

I think they are just showing off.

Comcast customers can have the channel in two locations for nothing, while TWC customers have to fight just to keep it on the air for a legally stated period!

And remember this: there are no other programming choices were advertisers feel DVR/TiVo-free like sports. And there is nothing else that, at least in the eyes of those on Madison Avenue, delivers a young male audience as efficiently.

So beer, shaving, male clothing, automobile, gaming, action movie advertisers, and many others pay premium rates for live sports.

And by the way, cable and satellite providers also sell spots in those games -- and charge premium rates.

That advertisers consider the audience for these broadcasts to be valuable is hardly a compelling argument as to why *viewers* should be stuck footing a giant bill for these channels that they may or may not want.

I'm not disputing your comments about the ad rates for sports coverage -- but it doesn't seem remotely relevant to the issue of whether cable companies should give in to NFL Net's attempts to push their rates up.

That advertisers consider the audience for these broadcasts to be valuable is hardly a compelling argument as to why *viewers* should be stuck footing a giant bill for these channels that they may or may not want.

I'm not disputing your comments about the ad rates for sports coverage -- but it doesn't seem remotely relevant to the issue of whether cable companies should give in to NFL Net's attempts to push their rates up.

Don't Cable bills go up at least 6% a year for most Cable company subscribers ?
It does not seem that they have been all that reluctant to raise them every year - without any specific reasons given.

Why be stingy with America's Favorite Sport ?

At least the NFL Network has a reason to ask for a higher rate- Live regular Season games. That's a far better and definable excuse than Cable subscribers have ever received from Cable companies.

Don't Cable bills go up at least 6% a year for most Cable company subscribers ?
It does not seem that they have been all that reluctant to raise them every year - without any specific reasons given.

Why be stingy with America's Favorite Sport ?

At least the NFL Network has a reason to ask for a higher rate- Live regular Season games. That's a far better and definable excuse than Cable subscribers have ever received from Cable companies.

Don't like cable rates, go OTA HDTV and watch the Superbowl for FREE.

TV Sports
Cable's Pricey Ticket
By John M. Higgins Broadcasting & Cable 8/28/2006

No battle in the TV business gets hotter than cable- and satellite-TV operators' struggle over the escalating cost of sports networks. Any operators resisting a network's carriage or license-fee demands can count on attacks through advertising, sports talk radio, and even local politicians and Congress.

Unfortunately for operators, pro and college sports teams aim to push costs even higher, hatching expensive plans to create networks and beef up existing channels. Ultimately, subscribers end up footing the bill.

Sports networks are the most expensive programming on basic cable. The license fees for all the networks on an 80-channel basic-cable package cost an operator around $12 per subscriber last year, Morgan Stanley estimates. Nearly half of that stems from just a handful of programming networks: ESPN (around $3 monthly), at least one regional sports networks (around $2), and smaller channels like ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPN Desportes (another 35¢ cents for the package).

By comparison, the license fee for other basic-cable networks can be just pennies per subscriber; some networks, such as MTV or TBS, commonly run 25¢-50¢. (Disney Channel, however, gets $1 per sub.)

The average basic-cable subscriber pays $41.40 a month.

For years, the problem was that sports networks habitually increased their license fees dramatically. In a study of rising cable rates, the Government Accountability Office found that they rose an average 19.6% per year, three times the pace of non-sports networks.

New networks will only add to that. The NFL Network wants 75¢ per subscriber. Two college athletic conferences—the Big 10 and Mountain West—have teamed with established programmers to launch their own networks. Mountain West TV wants 75¢ per sub. Big 10 TV (managed by Fox Sports) could cost up to $1 per subscriber.

Major League Baseball team owners have delayed plans for their own network, waiting for the outcome of the NFL Network's groundbreaking campaign to secure hundreds of millions of dollars a year in new license fees.

Teams and networks love the idea of the potential profits, as well as feeding their die-hard fans with far more content than the general sports networks could ever offer. But many cable and satellite executives get angry because they risk annoying subscribers by raising prices for all, not just for the fans, or angering investors with lower margins.

However, cable operators often play both sides. Comcast is a major owner of regional networks. Even harsh sports critics Cox and Time Warner own part of a channel or two.

Because fan is short for “fanatic,” teams and networks are expert at using them to secure carriage and good license fees.

“These networks put together a business plan and expect us to eat it,” says Time Warner Cable Executive VP of Programming Fred Dressler. “Then they put the onus on us. We didn't ask for this network. Do I need a tennis network? I don't need a tennis network.”

Sports networks see no need to apologize. “Historically, the two primary drivers of cable and satellite television were sports and movies,” says Brian Bedol, CEO of college sports channel CSTV, which is partnering with colleges that make up Mountain West TV.

While having games appear on ESPN gives teams a wider audience, Bedol says college teams love the idea of offering deeper programming to their biggest supporters both at home and nationally. Referring to Mountain States Conference member Brigham Young University, Bedol says that, to millions of Mormons around the country, “BYU is like Notre Dame.

“This really is a great partnership,” he adds. “I think it's a very fair deal that benefits the conference, benefits the fans, and benefits the operators.”

Who's to blame? George Steinbrenner. The New York Yankees boss built regional sports network YES into an operation worth $1.2 billion, primarily on the back of the baseball team's local-TV rights. A few years earlier, he had proposed selling the entire team—TV rights included—to Cablevision Systems, owner of MSG Network, which at the time licensed the Yankees' games.

Few networks will see that kind of payoff (the Yankees are the most successful team of any kind in history, plus they're based in the nation's largest city). Some ventures may fizzle the way a few pro-sports networks did. Still, many in the sports are willing to give it the old college try.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6366091

By comparison, the license fee for other basic-cable networks can be just pennies per subscriber; some networks, such as MTV or TBS, commonly run 25¢-50¢. (Disney Channel, however, gets $1 per sub.)

Yep, just "pennies" per sub. Disney plus one $0.50 cablenet is only one-hundred and fifty "pennies". :rolleyes:

In comparison, ESPN is around 300 pennies, and most regional sports networks are around 200 pennies, per that same article. And right there, you approach half of the $12/subscriber monthly basic cable fees charged to cable operators per that article.

Of course, all of this is just a philosophical debate for me -- I don't subscribe to cable, DISH, or DirecTV, so I'm not paying for all that stuff that I don't want. And that's the way it will remain as long as they all feature "all or nothing" packages where 80% of the cost goes towards channels I don't want. Needless to say, if a la carte ever happens, none of the sports channels would be in a package that I'd purchase.

$12 is an extremely low estimate. Most estimates show that of the average cable bill, carriage fees account for approx. 40%. The $2 is also extremely high for the typical RSN. Only 2 or 3 command that kind of fee.

I'm not saying sports channels aren't over-priced, just that it's hypocritical to whine about sports fees while ignoring the much greater fees associated with other programming. As if it's perfectly fine for everyone to subsidize genres that we like, but for those that we don't like, they should be offered separately and funded entirely by those watching those channels.

Why is the $1 Disney channel more "subsidy worthy" channel than the $0.85 NFL Network channel?

OFF TOPIC:

Just wanted to get an opinion on this and then back to the topic at hand:

Let's say A La Carte began.

Would this induce cable companies, or the networks themselves, to LOWER the price of the current premium crop of channels(HBO/Showtime/Cinemax/Starz/Etc...),or would they RAISE them, or stay the same? Instead of being at the current $12-$15/month level, would that be cut in half?

I would think they would lower them since people's monthly bill's would probably drop a ton, it would make sense to make the prices lower to entice more viewers to buy their channel, and therefore gain a bigger piece of the pie.

I would also wonder how the fanatical Pric#$ at the FCC(sorry to say something bad, but that is all these people are, and would really hope they would go, but that will never happen unless you get someone with COMMON SENSE in office, but that is wishful thinking no matter what party you believe in) would handle the censorship issue?

I mean, now you would get to choose as to whatever comes into your home to view. Would this greatly reduce the FCC's influence because now people are paying for every individual channel they get, therefore they are choosing, even more directly, what comes into there homes.

Therefore channels like FX/Spike/TBS/TNT/USA/Etc... could actually make the claim that like the current crop of HBO's/Showtime/etc... that people have CHOSEN to have those channels to come into there home, and therefore the current editing restrictions on language on content and language could become more lax?

Just wondering people's feelings.

Why is the $1 Disney channel more "subsidy worthy" channel than the $0.85 NFL Network channel?

Because we have to "PROTECT THE CHILDREN" CPanther95 from those "EVIL DOERS", and the Disney channel is safe for them. :) ;)

Counterbalance Viewpoint: http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/sports/football/15366801.htm


NFL on Thursday just not natural

By Kevin Modesti
LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS
The question about the NFL has always been: When would the league go too far in its lust for world domination, and spoil what made it special?

And now we have the answer: Thursday.

Forever and ever, the NFL was a Sunday thing alongside church-going and lawn mowing, in exactly that order for most red-blooded American men.

Then, the NFL became a Sunday and Monday thing, which was fine because Monday Night Football expanded the game's cultural appeal and helped to attract red-blooded American women.

Then, somewhere along the way, the NFL annexed Saturday, and even that was OK because pro football was considerate enough to wait until December after the end of the college football regular season.

The question was where this would end. And the answer is that it wouldn't.

Check the schedule for the upcoming NFL season.

It kicks off on a Thursday (Miami-Pittsburgh, Sept. 7), and it features three Thursday games on a Thanksgiving. Neither the Thursday opener nor the Thanksgiving football is new. Beginning with Thanksgiving, there will be Thursday games for five straight weeks down the season's homestretch. This is new.

That old NFL platitude about how "on any given Sunday, any team can beat any other team," is going to have to be stretched and twisted to "on any given Saturday, Sunday, Monday or Thursday ..."

If you guessed the schedule's spread to Thursday has something to do with that devil television, you're right -- the Thursday games post-Thanksgiving will be among the first batch of regular-season games to be shown by the NFL Network.

If you guessed that getting the NFL Network's Thursday games on your TV set sounds as if it's going to cost money, right again. But that's not the real problem with Thursday.

A big part of the fun of pro football has always been the roller-coaster rhythm leading up to and out of your team's weekly game. If you live in a city with a team, that cycle of buildup and rehash carried the whole community along, the sort of widely shared experience that only sport and a just war can provide.

When every game is on Sunday, you can mark the autumn-winter calendar:

Sunday -- Game, biggest of season. Your team loses.

Monday -- Recriminations. Debate whether to fire coach, bench quarterback or both.

Tuesday -- Third-string nose guard comes down with groin pull. Put on sackcloth and ashes, which conveniently is the team's latest alternate jersey.

Wednesday -- Begin to obsess about next Sunday's game, biggest of season.

Thursday -- Debate whether to establish run, then pass, or establish pass, then run.

Friday -- Study USA Today matchup box to see if your OLBs can handle their RB, or if your FS is really going to have to be on his toes.

Saturday -- Notice that a week of betting has dropped line from plus-41/2 to plus-1. Phone bookie to lock in bet before the amateur money comes in.

Sunday -- Repeat.

This routine is easily adjusted for Saturday and Monday games.

But Thursday throws everything off.

Can it be long before the NFL spreads out again, following the trend of college football, which used to be a Saturday thing but now shows up on ESPN34 any old night of the week?

Baseball is the sport that's supposed to be played every day, the schedule so relentless that a dozing fan can easily miss a week.

"How are the Dodgers doing?"

"The whole roster is having a sex-change operation. They haven't been able to field a team for a week."

"Wow, I guess I missed that."

"The weird thing is, they've gained four games in the division."

Sure, there must have been a big Thursday game somewhere in the dark recesses of NFL lore. If so, it will be found in one of those kids' books with titles like "The Weirdest Stories in Football History," and it'll turn out that one of the teams played in snowshoes.

I vow not to watch any of the NFL's Thursday games this season, and I ask you to join me in this boycott.

Let's keep Sunday as the day when American life is dominated by pro football, the way God intended.

===

* Now there's a little heartfelt Football nostalgia/logic, I can sympathize with. But, I still agree with those that have made comments about 'Too many games on Sunday to watch !" and " I can't record all the ones I want to see !"

...
Let's say A La Carte began.

Would this induce cable companies, or the networks themselves, to LOWER the price of the current premium crop of channels(HBO/Showtime/Cinemax/Starz/Etc...),or would they RAISE them, or stay the same? Instead of being at the current $12-$15/month level, would that be cut in half?

I would think they would lower them since people's monthly bill's would probably drop a ton, it would make sense to make the prices lower to entice more viewers to buy their channel, and therefore gain a bigger piece of the pie.

What would be different about then or now. If you think they would gain more subs from lower prices, why do you think that couldn't happen before a la carte ?
If cable bills are lower or cable bills are higher, the argument that if HBO lowers their prices that they would gain subs will always hold true.

What would be different about then or now. If you think they would gain more subs from lower prices, why do you think that couldn't happen before a la carte ?
If cable bills are lower or cable bills are higher, the argument that if HBO lowers their prices that they would gain subs will always hold true.

Because most people now feel they pay too much for cable as it is, especially at the analog level.

If you were to cut out most of the channels that you are paying for now, and have to only pay for the channels you want, you cable bill should be significantly lower.

Granted, your channel total would be less, but people would be more apt to add one of the premium channels to there channel lineup because they want it.

Let's say you pay $50/month for analog(lowest level, and basic plus or whatever your area calls it). You get 71 channels for this price. Probably more than half you don't watch on a regular basis.

Let's say A la Carte appears.

Now you cut out all the channels you don't want, and you are now paying $35/month for between 25-30 channels.

Obviously alot less, but these are channels you watch on a regular basis and WANT.

Now since you could afford(then again, maybe you couldn't) the $50/month for all the crap you didn't want, you now have $15/month wiggle room. Now you could get the HBO you may have wanted before, but could not afford. More savings, more apt to go for a premium channel.

Of course, this is all based on current prices, and a set-up which cable companies, and there owners will fight to the death to keep.

Some will go up, some will go down, some will become free (totally ad supported) - and some will go under because of lack of demand, or poor cost/pricing strategies.

A channel that is extremely undervalued, like Fox News, would likely have no trouble maintaining current revenue levels. A channel like ESPN that is not only overpriced, but currently required of all subscribers, would have no chance of maintaining current revenue levels.

Another issue I never see addressed is -- what would make TWC offer a channel I might buy a la carte - NFLN or ESPN2HD for example. Or on the other end maybe a channel devoted only to who knows what but I would like to have it a la carte and am willing to pay for it. TWC could go a la carte with the same list they offer right now and then where are we. The real issue to me is TWC does not offer the channels we want and offers a whole bunch we don't want (religious ones for example). Why would that change with a la carte? Why would they change the list of what they offer? I don't see them doing that.

For all practical purposes I pay $7 a month for ESPNHD because the rest of the package of those channels are junk. We may watch sporting event once in while on one of them but we watch them very little. So is that a la carte? Sort of.

Of course NFL Network, by virtue of that fact that football is so frickin' popular that advertisers just can't spend enough to sell 38 year old men shaving cream, beer, and F-150's, could simply drop subscription fees altogether.

Yeah, right......

What is the official shaving creme of the National Football League anyway???

Another issue I never see addressed is -- what would make TWC offer a channel I might buy a la carte - NFLN or ESPN2HD for example. Or on the other end maybe a channel devoted only to who knows what but I would like to have it a la carte and am willing to pay for it. TWC could go a la carte with the same list they offer right now and then where are we. The real issue to me is TWC does not offer the channels we want and offers a whole bunch we don't want (religious ones for example). Why would that change with a la carte? Why would they change the list of what they offer? I don't see them doing that.



First of all, there will be far fewer channels to carry, so they would likely be able to offer all the channels and still have less than they do today. Secondly, if their revenue is determined by the number of channels selected, it would be in their interest to offer as many as possible.

In the current situation, the cableco has to eat the increased cost of NFL Network if they add the channel under the NFL's terms. Sure, they could have a price increase to offset that cost, but they could also have a price increase without offering the NFL, so it basically comes out of their bottom line. If the channel was offered a la carte, it would simply represent the opportunity for additional revenue.

HBO has succeeded under a la carte, and so could many others. They've managed a 27% take rate at approx. $10 (I think they actually get the first $7 than a percentage of anything above that), but they are only successful because of the demand they create with their programming - not because of the leverage they can exert on carriage.

HBO would kill for ESPN money, and would actually be cheaper than ESPN if it were offered on expanded basic to all subscribers. Where's the common sense in the current pricing/tiers when ESPN can have only 1 in 6 subs as occasional viewers when it is (percieved as) "free" and they generate more in subscriber fees than a channel for which 27% of the population is willing to pay $10 a month?

Of course NFL Network, by virtue of that fact that football is so frickin' popular that advertisers just can't spend enough to sell 38 year old men shaving cream, beer, and F-150's, could simply drop subscription fees altogether.

Yeah, right......

NFL isn't one of those channels that would need to drop carriage fees to survive. The popularity of the NFL will boost ad revenue, but it would also boost the subscription rate. The free channels will be those that generate little demand under a la carte, and will make more money from advertising just by virtue of being in more homes than they could generate based solely on the popularity of their programming.

NFL isn't one of those channels that would need to drop carriage fees to survive. The popularity of the NFL will boost ad revenue, but it would also boost the subscription rate. The free channels will be those that generate little demand under a la carte, and will make more money from advertising just by virtue of being in more homes than they could generate based solely on the popularity of their programming.

You missed my point. The point was that the NFL claims to be SO popular, why can't they survive strictly on advertinsing revenues. They could simply GIVE the channel to cable operators for free and EVERY single "cablesat" home would get it.

As it stands now, they are in 41,000,000 of the 92,000,000 of the "cablesat" households, so ad revenue is diminished, and so they need to be subsidized with subscripition dollars. (Problem is that all their revenue dollars are based on having all 92,000,000 households at 90 cents a month PLUS ad dollars.)

Not very smart business people if you ask me.

First of all, there will be far fewer channels to carry, so they would likely be able to offer all the channels and still have less than they do today. Secondly, if their revenue is determined by the number of channels selected, it would be in their interest to offer as many as possible.

In the current situation, the cableco has to eat the increased cost of NFL Network if they add the channel under the NFL's terms. Sure, they could have a price increase to offset that cost, but they could also have a price increase without offering the NFL, so it basically comes out of their bottom line. If the channel was offered a la carte, it would simply represent the opportunity for additional revenue.

HBO has succeeded under a la carte, and so could many others. They've managed a 27% take rate at approx. $10 (I think they actually get the first $7 than a percentage of anything above that), but they are only successful because of the demand they create with their programming - not because of the leverage they can exert on carriage.

HBO would kill for ESPN money, and would actually be cheaper than ESPN if it were offered on expanded basic to all subscribers. Where's the common sense in the current pricing/tiers when ESPN can have only 1 in 6 subs as occasional viewers when it is (percieved as) "free" and they generate more in subscriber fees than a channel for which 27% of the population is willing to pay $10 a month?

It sure sounds to me like you almost agree with me, that the NFL should allow carriage of their channel as a optional premium channel. That IS the most reasonable solution.

Only difference is that I believe they ALL should. You believe the cableco should force carriage of 60 channels and require us to pay for them - then draw the line at the NFL.

Until they pull ESPN, Discovery, Lifetime, etc. from the basic tier - NFL has every right to demand similar terms.

You missed my point. The point was that the NFL claims to be SO popular, why can't they survive strictly on advertinsing revenues. They could simply GIVE the channel to cable operators for free and EVERY single "cablesat" home would get it.

As it stands now, they are in 41,000,000 of the 92,000,000 of the "cablesat" households, so ad revenue is diminished, and so they need to be subsidized with subscripition dollars. (Problem is that all their revenue dollars are based on having all 92,000,000 households at 90 cents a month PLUS ad dollars.)

Not very smart business people if you ask me.

Very, very smart. The extra 50 million subs will generate over half a billion dollars - then the advertising revenue will also increase.

Giving away a channel for free is what would be stupid. Ad revenue can't hold a candle to subscription fees.

Very, very smart. The extra 50 million subs will generate over half a billion dollars - then the advertising revenue will also increase.

Giving away a channel for free is what would be stupid. Ad revenue can't hold a candle to subscription fees.

IF they get those 50,000,000 subs, which they may not. Right now they're in the hole at BOTH ends. If they lose this whole season, how long does it take to dig themselves out of the hole?

does that mean NFLN could be next year's OLN/Verus :p

IF they get those 50,000,000 subs, which they may not. Right now they're in the hole at BOTH ends. If they lose this whole season, how long does it take to dig themselves out of the hole?

Not long at all unless you really have a short view. MNF ad revenue was about $400 million. What can the NFLN expect from their 8 game slate? Generously $200 million with 90 million subs, $100 million with 45 million. That's a $100 million hit (likely much less than that) in order to hold out for their $500 million payday.

They'll hold firm. If it takes 5 years for the cable holdouts to buckle, they'll make it back in year 6. :)

It's not just a money thing, it's also a prestige item when ESPN and it's NFL games usually take at least 7 out of the "Top 10" Rated programs/shows on Cable Tv each and every year.

The NFL Network would brag about that if they could, but with 10's of millions not able to see their games, they're stuck.

Not long at all unless you really have a short view. MNF ad revenue was about $400 million. What can the NFLN expect from their 8 game slate? Generously $200 million with 90 million subs, $100 million with 45 million. That's a $100 million hit (likely much less than that) in order to hold out for their $500 million payday.

They'll hold firm. If it takes 5 years for the cable holdouts to buckle, they'll make it back in year 6. :)

That assumes alot. The NFL Network risks alienating its fans for exporting games to subsription only channels, channels that aren't available to average joe 6-pak. Plus you are assuming away the cost of operating the NFL network for six years -- its not just a matter of revenue -- there are costs.

The eight game slate is a six year committment ??? Then what ??? Well that depends. If they reach their subscriber goals, they'll move more games to NFL Network and hike the rates. Does their carriage contract have an escalation cap clause within it's terms and upon renewal ??? Perhaps that's a issue in the stalled negotiations.

It sure would be fun to watch Palansky and Dressler on Hardball.

The NFL is not worried about the fan base. They'll bend over as far as required.

I'm not sure how long the 8 games are guaranteed. But you're right, you can rest assured that they will add whatever is necessary to maximize revenue. That also means that fewer and fewer games will be available via "free" OTA broadcasters because they will be unable to compete.

Maybe an NFLI channel will emerge that will air all interconference Sunday games once the current NFC/AFC packages expire. ;)

...If they lose this whole season, how long does it take to dig themselves out of the hole?

The same question, of course, could be asked of TWC, which is getting hammered here in Los Angeles (which is not even an NFL city) by radio and TV commercials, the City Council and newspaper ads).

DirecTV installers say they have never been so busy.

How much of that is because of TWC, how much because of the impending football season and the rapid sales growth of HDTVs this year and how much is attributable to other causes is up for discussion.

TWC on the other hand is running extremely misleading ads saying in effect "Get All Your NFL Football Here".

Cable = misleading Ads

= = =

Say it ain't so !

Now, an optomist word from http://www.southflorida.com/news/sfl-tjqaaug27aug27,0,6221218.story?coll=sfe-guide-headlines

Q. Will we be able to get the NFL Network here in Florida? -- Jim, e-mail

A. Depends on where "here" is. If your cable system is Comcast or you have Dish or Direct-TV, you'll have access to it, although some people might have to upgrade the tier they purchase. In all likelihood, most other cable systems will make it available, especially when the NFL's eight-game package starts on Thanksgiving.

= = =

Of interest -

High School Football making a comeback (?) at the expense of Soccer

http://www.sunjournal.com/sports/local/20060827162.php

From futbol to football

The NFL Network risks alienating its fans for exporting games to subsription only channels, channels that aren't available to average joe 6-pak.Maybe, maybe not. You can be sure they did market research before making the move.

We shall see. I'd bet Joe & his friends belly up to the bar for this one.

... The NFL Network risks alienating its fans for exporting games to subsription only channels, channels that aren't available to average joe 6-pak. ...
Average Joe 6-Pak is blaming TWC not NFL. Thanksgiving has 3 games this year, I see that as adding a game for people without Sunday-Ticket. All 8 could not have been seen by any other means, they didn't take these games away from the other networks they adding them to the Subs of NFL Network, like me. :)

You missed my point. The point was that the NFL claims to be SO popular, why can't they survive strictly on advertinsing revenues. They could simply GIVE the channel to cable operators for free and EVERY single "cablesat" home would get it.

As it stands now, they are in 41,000,000 of the 92,000,000 of the "cablesat" households, so ad revenue is diminished, and so they need to be subsidized with subscripition dollars. (Problem is that all their revenue dollars are based on having all 92,000,000 households at 90 cents a month PLUS ad dollars.)

Not very smart business people if you ask me.
Your argument against a la carte has always been that every channels would be expensive and our bill would go up.
But you have the opposite opinion when it comes to the NFL Network.

I agree with you that the lower the price of the channel the more subs you get, and the more the channel can get for ads. I hope that when we do go a la carte that ALL the channels try and make their money with ad revenue instead of subscription fees as you sugest the NFL should do.
For now DISH added NFL-HD and took care of the subscription fee for me. :)

That's exactly why TWC will lose this battle if the NFL just sticks to their guns. There's no way to logically explain to their subscribers why the policy of continually adding channels of interest only to a small minority should be abandoned when it comes to the NFL which is of interest to a greater segment of their customers.

That's exactly why TWC will lose this battle if the NFL just sticks to their guns. There's no way to logically explain to their subscribers why the policy of continually adding channels of interest only to a small minority should be abandoned when it comes to the NFL which is of interest to a greater segment of their customers.

Well, first off, TWC hasn't added a channel to the expanded basic in my area for at least a couple of years. No HD stations have been added in almost two (ESPNHD in October 2004). So TWC isn't adding channels. But that really isn't your point.

I think there is an explanation for TWC not picking up the NFLN that resonates -- NFL greed. It resonates particularly well with the NFL's blue collor fan base backbone (Typical joe 6 pack with his two or three sdtvs hooked up directly to the cable outlet with no STB). This fan literally can't afford to pay more for cable and will be pissed off when he finds out (on Thanksgiving day) that the NFL has taken away this football game so that people are forced to spend more to sign on to the NFLN. Long run this is part of an ongoing image problem that will continue to hurt the NFL.

The affluent NFL fanatic left TWC for NFL Sunday Ticket. College fans are leaving because of ESPN2HD/ESPNU. Unfortunatley, TWC now has been left with a market that has neither the desire nor the spending power to demand additional cable services (including on-demand services which TWC has focused on now for the past five years).

So yes, the NFLN has backed TWC into a corner. I agree that the situation is hurting TWC. But now, with affluent customers switching and signing contracts with D* and E*, what chance does TWC have of getting those customers back? In other words, what incentive does TWC have to back down?

...
I think there is an explanation for TWC not picking up the NFLN that resonates -- NFL greed. It resonates particularly well with the NFL's blue collor fan base backbone (Typical joe 6 pack with his two or three sdtvs hooked up directly to the cable outlet with no STB). This fan literally can't afford to pay more for cable and will be pissed off when he finds out (on Thanksgiving day) that the NFL has taken away this football game so that people are forced to spend more to sign on to the NFLN. Long run this is part of an ongoing image problem that will continue to hurt the NFL.
...
The NFL Network is adding an EXTRA game on Thanksgiving Day. Explain how the NFL is taking any games away. They are adding 8 games for Everyone that does not already have Sunday-Ticket.

I think Joe 6-Pak is not as uninformed as you are. ;)

Even some of the tiniest Television providers are adding the NFL Network:

http://www.wiscnews.com/rtp/news/index.php?ntid=96594&ntpid=2

Seems cheap to me:

"Reedsburg Utility will also begin offering customers The NFL Network. The channel will appear in the expanded basic option for subscribers within the next few weeks and will cost the utility $13,435 annually."

What, not in a Sports Package or forcing Fans to get a Digital Tier ?

= = =

It seems that picking up some of those College Bowl games is paying off and may add additional pressure on the Cable companies:

http://www.jconline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060828/COLUMNISTS10/608280308

"Also, ESPN.com forecasts a trip to the Insight Bowl on Dec. 29 against Iowa State. The Insight Bowl is assigned the No. 6 teams from both the Big Ten and Big 12.

Here's a tip: If Purdue is sent to Tempe, Ariz., upgrade your digital cable package in Lafayette because the Insight Bowl is scheduled for the NFL Network."

The 8-game NFLN package basically took the games that were aired nationally on Saturdays in December in previous years OTA and ESPN.

ok, just got done reading this discussion, and i have a question for posg. if time warner is in favor of protecting the customer, then why did they recently move the game show network into the sports package? for as long as I had digital cable, the game show network was apart of the basic digital cable package, which was obtained by subscribing to the basic digipic bundle package. however recently the channel was moved into the sports tier, renamed games and sports tier. the price, $1.95 extra per month did not change, but why bundle a channel like the game show network with a bunch of sports channels. the answer is of course...the game show network was one of the more popular digital channels, so why not make it extra and bundle it with sports channels that the average gsn fan does not want.

this is why i am rooting for the nfl. at least they are being honest about their position. on top of that they are the biggest niche programming in the country today, thus they deserve to be on basic analog (the real reason cable is more popular than satellite) everything on cable is niche programming, so it makes since for the most popular of the niches to be available on the most widely available tier.

one more thing, the nfl is not lying when it is saying local fans will miss their local team. like in colorado, unless you live in the denver dma, you have to have the nfl network to get that broncos game. the situation would be the same for me in the panthers. they are my local team, but i am not in the charlotte dma, thus if they were on the nfl network, that would be my only option to watch the game.

...the game show network was one of the more popular digital channels ...

And you said that with a straight face. :D :D :D :D

ok, just got done reading this discussion, and i have a question for posg. if time warner is in favor of protecting the customer, then why did they recently move the game show network into the sports package? for as long as I had digital cable, the game show network was apart of the basic digital cable package, which was obtained by subscribing to the basic digipic bundle package. however recently the channel was moved into the sports tier, renamed games and sports tier. the price, $1.95 extra per month did not change, but why bundle a channel like the game show network with a bunch of sports channels. the answer is of course...the game show network was one of the more popular digital channels, so why not make it extra and bundle it with sports channels that the average gsn fan does not want.

this is why i am rooting for the nfl. at least they are being honest about their position. on top of that they are the biggest niche programming in the country today, thus they deserve to be on basic analog (the real reason cable is more popular than satellite) everything on cable is niche programming, so it makes since for the most popular of the niches to be available on the most widely available tier.

one more thing, the nfl is not lying when it is saying local fans will miss their local team. like in colorado, unless you live in the denver dma, you have to have the nfl network to get that broncos game. the situation would be the same for me in the panthers. they are my local team, but i am not in the charlotte dma, thus if they were on the nfl network, that would be my only option to watch the game.

TWC is not "in favor of protecting the customer". I never said that. They are in favor of protecting their investors.

NFL Network is not "trying to give fans more of what they want". You call that honesty??? They are trying to get more of what they want.

Anything else you hear from either party is pure spin.

And you said that with a straight face. :D :D :D :D

compared to the other digital channel twc offers us, i can say that with a straight face :D

but seriously i think it is a safe to say that out of this list game show network would be one of the more popular ones, and moving it into a premium tier would be a great way to get non sports fans to subscribe to the sports pack, especially since it is only $1.95 extra

88 The Biography Channel
89 History International
90 Flix East
91 Flix West
92 Toon Disney
93 Noggin
94 Discovery Kids
95 Discovery Science
96 Nickelodeon Games & Sports
98 Military Channel
99 Discovery Times Channel
100 WEATHER NOW
101 Discovery Home
102 CSPAN 3
103 Boomerang
104 Bloomberg TV
105 CNBC World
106 Current TV
107 Ovation
108 Nick Toons
109 BBC America
111 Lifetime Real Women
112 Fine Living Network
115 Fox Movie Channel
126 fuse
127 MTV2
128 VH1 Classic
129 Great American Country
130 BET on Jazz
131 G4techTV
132 MBC
133 TV One
134 Si TV
135 America's Store
136 Do it Yourself Network
139 ESPN News
140 Fox Soccer Channel
149 Jewelry Television
151 SLEUTH
152 AmericanLife TV
153 The Word Network
154 I Life TV
155 Inspirational Network
156 EWTN: Eternal Word TV Network
265 The Disney Channel - West
903 WWAY Weather
921 The TUBE Music Network
939 WECT Weather Plus
940 UNC (PBS)
941 UNC Educational
942 UNC KIDS
943 UNC NC

also, i don't see how the nfl is being dishonest. they have a product that is the king of all niche products. all of cable is basically niche channels. therefore shouldnt the most popular niche be available to the most people? nfl knows there is high demand and they are capitalizing on it. time warner is being hypocritical saying they want to tier it to protect customers while at the same time moving a popular non sports channel into the sports package.

88 The Biography Channel
89 History International
90 Flix East
91 Flix West
92 Toon Disney
93 Noggin
94 Discovery Kids
95 Discovery Science
96 Nickelodeon Games & Sports
98 Military Channel
99 Discovery Times Channel
100 WEATHER NOW
101 Discovery Home
102 CSPAN 3
103 Boomerang
104 Bloomberg TV
105 CNBC World
106 Current TV
107 Ovation
108 Nick Toons
109 BBC America
111 Lifetime Real Women
112 Fine Living Network
115 Fox Movie Channel
126 fuse
127 MTV2
128 VH1 Classic
129 Great American Country
130 BET on Jazz
131 G4techTV
132 MBC
133 TV One
134 Si TV
135 America's Store
136 Do it Yourself Network
139 ESPN News
140 Fox Soccer Channel
149 Jewelry Television
151 SLEUTH
152 AmericanLife TV
153 The Word Network
154 I Life TV
155 Inspirational Network
156 EWTN: Eternal Word TV Network
265 The Disney Channel - West
903 WWAY Weather
921 The TUBE Music Network
939 WECT Weather Plus
940 UNC (PBS)
941 UNC Educational
942 UNC KIDS
943 UNC NC

Interesting list -- I see maybe 3 channels we might use the others we have no use for! TWC loves its customer base. Maybe ala carte is the way to go because I am sure most of us would not agree on the list of what might be watched in your house or mine form this list.

On what was said in posts above:

I think it's obvious Time Warner believes/knows that they make more money on selling the Sports Package and that by throwing into it the NFL Network, the GSN and who know what other channels eventually, they'll perk up otherwise limp sales/subscribtions.

= = =

Interesting, what Comcast is doing in some of their newer Cable areas:

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060829/FEAT05/60829017

"Comcast Cable to preview new sports channel

The Clarion-Ledger


Beginning Friday, Comcast Cable (formerly Time Warner Cable and Suscom) will offer a preview of Comcast Sports Southeast (CSS), which shows full-game replays of Ole Miss and Mississippi State University football games.

CSS will be carried on Channel 73 as part of the basic service level. CSS airs sports programming from around the Southeast. Replays of Ole Miss football games will air at 1 p.m. Sundays. MSU’s games will replay at 8:30 p.m. Sundays.

The Jackson-area system also will preview NFL Network on Channel 124, part of the digital lineup. The former Suscom system already carries the NFL Network on Channel 122, but will move it to Channel 124 on Friday.

The previews should last about a month, said Frances Smith, spokeswoman for Comcast. Depending on viewer interest, the channels could become a permanent part of the cable lineup.
Areas previously served under the Time Warner name include Jackson, Clinton, Madison, Ridgeland, Florence, Raymond and unincorporated areas of Hinds, Madison and Rankin counties. Areas served under the Suscom name include Brandon, Flowood, Pearl and Canton.

Comcast bought Suscom in April, and traded for Time Warner Cable on Aug. 1."

TV Sports
No NFL Net Deal As TW Deadline Looms
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 8/30/2006

With Time Warner planning to start pulling the NFL Network off newly acquired systems soon after its 30-day notification window is up this weekend, the two are still talking, but nothing conclusive has come of the talks, according to Time Warner spokesman Mark Harrad.

Time Warner does not carry the NFL Network on its systems, so it took the network off the systems of Comcast and Adelphia when it acquired them in early August.

But the FCC, which the month before had paved the way with its approval of the Adelphia break-up, made Time Warner put the network back on almost immediately, saying that the cable operator did not give the requisite 30-day notice before pulling the games and concluding the NFL Network would suffer more from not reaching sports fans whose viewing patterns are set during preseason than Time Warner would from keeping on a network it wanted on its systems anyway, under the right terms.

The NFL Network carries every preseason game, but does not have a regular season game until Thanksgiving (Nov. 23, Denver vs. Kansas City), so, while the FCC acted quickly to restore the preseason games in August and try to nudge a market solution, after the regular season starts Sept. 7, there would arguably be less government impetus to push the parties until November, and Time Warner is free to pull it.

Time Warner put the network back on Aug. 3--it had pulled it Aug. 1--and still intends to stop carrying the network if no agreement has been reached by this weekend, though it will not necessarily pull them all at once on Sept. 3, says Harrad, providing a buffer in case some systems did not start notifying customers exactly on the Aug. 3 date. It could be a rolling process, or all at once, as was the case when it pulled the network, says Harrad.

Time Warner wants the flexibility to put the NFL Network in a sports tier, while the NFL wants it in the expanded basic tier. There is also the issue of price. The NFL reportedly is asking in the dollar-per-sub range, higher than many top-10 cable nets now command.

Harrad points out that in the Comcast and Adelphia systems it acquired, the network had been running in a variety of tiers including sports tiers, digital tiers, digital-plus tiers and expanded basic.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6367001

About this whole line of reasoning that because the games will be on local TV, Fans will get to see their team play:

Carl Banks (the old Giants Middle Linebacker) was just on Fox Sports Radio talking about NFL merchandising. He has his own line of items and works with the NFL.

He said that the companies that make the apparel did a study about two years ago to find out the best way to sell not only NFL, but MLB and NBA stuff.

Part of the results showed that 55% of those that are considered Fans of any NFL team, on average, live outside of their 'local' market area.

For Baseball it's about 9% and for Basketball it's 13%.

That means that when a game is only shown locally in the NFL (within it's DMA or NFL defined area), it is more than just likely that the majority of Fans will not be able to watch.

The MLB and NBA does not have this 'National' problem (if one would call it that) !

Are they making room by folding up INHD2?

I got a letter today from TWC SC that they have a new agreement. On Sept 2 they will move the Outdoor Channel from the Digital sports tier to the digital tier so I don't have to buy the DST to see people kill animals and fish ;) I am so glad they spent all this time making this major change to their service --- TWC does care about its customers.

Except now there is an empty channel in my DST -- could it be NFLN -- no that would show that they care about us :p

What about those that do not want to pay the extra $$$'s for a Digital Tier ?

=

Back to the TWC vs NFL Network ..

http://www.wben.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=05709


"Buffalo, NY (WBEN) - A spokesman for the NFL Network says it appears this weekend will be your last chance to get Bills and other team news before Time Warner pulls it off its basic lineup for good.

Seth Palansky tells NewsRadio 930 WBEN Time Warner appears to stand firm on its stance to place the network on a digital tier that will cost an additional fee for subscribers. Palansky says other major cable providers "have understood the importance of NFL Network" and placed the channel on basic systems."

You can hear an Audio report at the Web page through the link above.

One ' Stick this in your eye ! " comment denoting Time Warner was that they think that " Bills Fans are fair weather Fans and don't really care about their team ! "

Great comment for Community Relations !

= = =

College Football News/Shows on NFL Network increase http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=122582

"The network announced Wednesday that it will carry a highlight/scoreboard show on Saturday as well as live news conferences from head coaches and players on a show called "Point After."

The scoreboard show will begin at 4 p.m. EDT as early games end.

It will have Paul Burmeister as host with analysts Mike Mayock, Butch Davis and Charles Davis. Point After will be televised during the week at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. On Wednesday it will be shown at 3 p.m. "

I wonder when they'll make a major deal to carry Live Fall College games, thus giving the insatiable U.S. Sports Fan more reasons to want/watch the channel ?

* They have 4 Bowl Games currently and are looking for more.

In some places, they're starting to predict what's going to happen: http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cheapseats/articles/0901p2main0901.html

"10. Nov. 26: NFL fans, still angry that they couldn't find the Broncos-Chiefs game Thanksgiving night on NFL Network, are appeased with the leftovers: a Sunday matchup between the best quarterbacks in the game, Donovan McNabb and Peyton Manning. The Eagles' McNabb finds he enjoys life without T.O., while Manning continues to find life difficult without Edgerrin James."

Expect this kind of commentary to seep into more and more Sports articles as the Regular Season games on the NFL Network approach.

Makes me happier and happier that I was able to tell TWC to go to hell. Buncha clowns that don't give a damn about their customers.

NFL, Time Warner Reach Extension

By Steve Donohue 9/1/2006 9:51:00 AM

NFL Network and Time Warner Cable reached an agreement that will see Time Warner continue to distribute the channel on systems it acquired from Adelphia Communications and Comcast until Sept. 15, officials said Friday.

Time Warner had planned to drop NFL Network Saturday at midnight – a move that would have impacted more than 1 million former Adelphia and Comcast subscribers that receive the channel under deals Adelphia and Comcast reached previously with the NFL.

“The encouraging thing is yesterday [Thursday], for the first time, discussions took place about leaving this channel up in the interim, and we can get back to the negotiating table,” NFL spokesman Seth Palansky said Friday.

Time Warner Cable Keith Cocozza confirmed that the cable distributor and NFL reached an interim agreement that will keep NFL Network on the former Adelphia and Comcast systems until Sept. 15, and that the parties will work on hatching a new agreement.

NFL Network is available in about 40 million homes. Time Warner Cable is the only top-five cable distributor without a deal in place to distribute the channel, which will begin carrying weekly NFL games on Thanksgiving.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6368218.html?display=Breaking+News

NFL, Time Warner Reach Extension

By Steve Donohue 9/1/2006 9:51:00 AM

NFL Network and Time Warner Cable reached an agreement that will see Time Warner continue to distribute the channel on systems it acquired from Adelphia Communications and Comcast until Sept. 15, officials said Friday.

Time Warner had planned to drop NFL Network Saturday at midnight – a move that would have impacted more than 1 million former Adelphia and Comcast subscribers that receive the channel under deals Adelphia and Comcast reached previously with the NFL.

“The encouraging thing is yesterday [Thursday], for the first time, discussions took place about leaving this channel up in the interim, and we can get back to the negotiating table,” NFL spokesman Seth Palansky said Friday.

Time Warner Cable Keith Cocozza confirmed that the cable distributor and NFL reached an interim agreement that will keep NFL Network on the former Adelphia and Comcast systems until Sept. 15, and that the parties will work on hatching a new agreement.

NFL Network is available in about 40 million homes. Time Warner Cable is the only top-five cable distributor without a deal in place to distribute the channel, which will begin carrying weekly NFL games on Thanksgiving.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6368218.html?display=Breaking+News

I wonder who "blinked". :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Or you could look at it this way:

TV Sports
Clock is Ticking for NFL Network
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/1/2006 2:48:00 PM

Time Warner has set Sept. 15 as the cut-off date for the NFL Network on the systems it recently acquired from Comcast and Adelphia.

It does not carry the network--the two are in a carriage battle--and had pulled it off those systems when it took them over Aug. 1. The NFL Net complained to the FCC, which made Time Warner put the network back on, saying it had not provided the requisite 30-days notice and that not having them on would hurt the NFL Net more that putting them back on would hurt Time Warner.

Time Warner soon after began providing notification to subs that it would pull the net. By midweek, Time Warner had not decided whether or how it would pull the systems--all at once or staggering them according to when they had first started informing subs and thus triggered the 30-day clock.

It has now decided to pull them on Sept. 15 if there is still no deal.

NFL Net spokesman Seth Palansky told B&C that the network has reached out to Time Warner about leaving the network on those systems while they try to hammer out a carriage deal, and said that Time Warner has provided "positive" feedback.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6368257

I wonder who "blinked". :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Why is that so important to you?

It is only an extension of a few days.

Why is that so important to you?

It is only an extension of a few days.

The clock is at the 11th hour. One of the two parties wants to buy a little more time. That usually means that one party has more to lose than the other. It means that there might actually be the potential for some sort of a compromise. The parties weren't even returning each others phone calls. I think it's an important development.

Besides, this is a much more interesting contest than an NFL game.

Whoops, this thread officially "jumped the shark" with that remark. :p

I spent 32 of my life in labor relations if the above stuff about TW and the NFL is true my past experience says they must be close to something. They have "stopped the clock". In labor terms if a contract ran out a midnight and you were close both side would agree to "stop the clock" at 11:59 and keep bargaining to prevent a strike. It seems that with the 30 day pull of the NFLN the two side have basically done the same thing to give them some time to finish a deal that might be very close. I hope so then we can get back to the real problems of the world -- ESPN2HD, ESPNU, EPSN360

Whoops, this thread officially "jumped the shark" with that remark. :p


Given posg's level of NFL interest, almost anything is more interesting to him than an NFL game.

But (as I rarely do) I must disagree, with you, keenan.

This thread jumped the shark somewhere back in the second page.

No question that TWC blinked.

It's in the NFL's interest to build viewers and demand for as long as possible up to, but not including, Thanksgiving Day.

If TWC was holding firm, they'd be idiots not to yank it the minute the 30 day mandate was up. Do they actually think that the outrage will be less if they wait until just before Thanksgiving to pull the channel?

Agreed, CP95.

And TWC, if it is going to yank NFLN, would be a lot smarter to get rid of it before the first weekend's games.

Too late now.

(But the smartest thing would not have been to get in a public pissing match with the NFL in the first place.)

I hope this thing gets settled, but for an entirely different reason than the rest of the "crowd". I think cable is a much more flexible technology than satellite, and has the potential to offer much much more than satellite it terms of choice and convenience over the long haul.

Therefore, I would hate to see a large contingency defect to satellite over one channel, or even worse, let the evil telcos get a foothold in the video business.

Therefore, I would hate to see a large contingency defect to satellite over one channel, or even worse, let the evil telcos get a foothold in the video business.
I really hope that this part was said tongue-in-cheek. I would love to have the option of FIOS here, if only to prod Cox into giving us HDNet, FoodHD, NGHD, ESPN2 HD, etc. Having a government-granted monopoly might be nice for the beneficiary and their fanboys, but for those of us who have no choice besides cable, it sucks.

I hope this thing gets settled, but for an entirely different reason than the rest of the "crowd". I think cable is a much more flexible technology than satellite, and has the potential to offer much much more than satellite it terms of choice and convenience over the long haul.

Therefore, I would hate to see a large contingency defect to satellite over one channel, or even worse, let the evil telcos get a foothold in the video business.
Cables 2-way technology is great and all but if the only channels they add are VODs and PPVs, who cares? TWC has consistently shown they can not grow the channel line-up with their current pricing structure. SAT has no problem adding channels and not raising prices for each addition.
So great, TWC adds NFL and ESPN2-HD a year after everyone else, but what about all the other new HD channels that are popping up and will continue to for the foreseeable future.
If history is any indication, TWC will always be last to the table if they show up at all. :(

Perhaps there's some confusion about that extension in Buffalo:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060902/1019753.asp

"The NFL Network reports that Time Warner will drop the channel at midnight tonight and that there are no negotiations in progress. Comcast cable, which also was involved in the takeover of Adelphia systems, has carried the network on a digital basic tier. It reportedly has agreed to pay a surcharge to carry the eight Thursday and Saturday games that start in November. If Comcast puts the games on extended basic, it might put pressure on Time Warner, which wants to put the games on a sports tier. "

Further speculation in San Antonio, but at least they have a handle on the whole issue:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/stories/MYSA090106.watch.EN.593f991c.html

"Two points that could be stalling any sort of agreement is channel placement and subscriber fees. For example, locally, NFL Network would like to be placed somewhere between channels 24-77 on Time Warner's standard service lineup. Time Warner would put the channel on a sports tier package that not only would require a subscriber to add a digital receiver to their setup (if the subscriber didn't have one already for $7.95 a month) and would pay $11.95 extra because NFL Network would be bundled along with niche channels, like NBA TV, SPEED, Fuel, The Outdoor Channel, ESPNEWS, The Tennis Channel, Fox Soccer Channel and three Fox College Sports channels.

The per subscriber license fee is the other sticky point. Cable system operators pay program providers a license fee for programming. B&C's John M. Higgins' reports that basic cable network fees can run the gambit from extremely cheap to moderate (MTV and TBS run somewhere between 25 to 50 cents per subscriber, Disney Channel gets $1) but NFL Network wants anywhere from 75 cents to $1 for its fee.

By comparison, ESPN charges somewhere between $2-$3, but ESPN is an established brand, NFL Network isn't. The NFL believes the games' popularity justifies the cost but cable operators believe the fee is too high.

Whoever wins, the subscriber pays in the end. A 2004 report by the Government Accountability Office states that cable rates rose by almost 20 percent that year, in part because of sports networks license fee increases. In the past few years, Time Warner Cable has said its yearly rate adjustments were due to sports networks demanding more in fees to offset the cost of pro and college sports packages that they buy. "

I apologize if this is the wrong forum for this question. I am a Time Warner Cable subscriber in Memphis, TN and this morning while channel surfing I came across the NFL network being shown in HD... I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I watched it for about an hour... when it suddenly cut off and it started showing FSN.

My question is what the heck is going on with that?

Since I just posted, it has cut back to showing NFL network in standard format... ????

TWC has been playing games with the NFL Network for a while.

Now you see it ! / Now you don't !

Don't know how much truth there is to this.
But one of the top guys at my local Time Warner office said that we would be getting the NFL network soon. When I asked him who had given in and would the station be in a sports tier or stand alone, he said he had no idea. He had just heard that a deal had been worked out.

Anyone else heard anything similar?

and in amusing news, even Apple's iTunes store now gets the NFL Network.

Check out the TV ratings in the link below. For example:

"... Fox's Dallas Cowboys-Jacksonville Jaguars game — the highest rating for anything on TV since American Idol's finale on Fox in May."

Anyone still think the NFL Network would be a "niche" channel?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2006-09-12-hiestand-nfl_x.htm

Check out the TV ratings in the link below. For example:

"... Fox's Dallas Cowboys-Jacksonville Jaguars game — the highest rating for anything on TV since American Idol's finale on Fox in May."

Anyone still think the NFL Network would be a "niche" channel?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2006-09-12-hiestand-nfl_x.htm
Redskins and Cowboys matchup Sunday night.
I don't know if it will be a ratings buster but I'd think it would be a bigger draw than Dallas and Jacksonville. :cool:

With apologies to fredfa.


NFL Network Cuts Comcast Deal
By John M. Higgins and Ben Grossman -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/14/2006 2:14:00 PM
The three-year-old NFL Network has quietly cut a deal for this season with Comcast Corp., the largest U.S. cable operator, to carry its controversial package of eight live football games on terms far weaker than the league is seeking.

Meanwhile, the NFL Network will go dark on Time Warner Cable systems recently acquired from Adelphia Communications in a bankruptcy sale.The Adelphia dispute is part of a larger duel in which the No. 2 cable operator is resisting paying the NFL network's high license fee and carriage demands. Time Warner has said the NFL is looking for a 250% increase in those fees.

When the NFL Network’s new eight-game, Thursday-Saturday package kicks off on Thanksgiving, Comcast will air the games on a digital tier available to fewer than one third of its subscribers. The league has been seeking carriage on basic cable, which would be available to nearly all of the operator's 23.3 million subscribers.

While the league is seeking fees in the 70-90 cents per subscriber per month range, according to cable executives, Comcast is paying a significantly lower rate under terms of the current arrangement.Comcast seems to hold more leverage at the moment – it has the right to put the network on a digital sports and entertainment tier that is available to a tiny fraction of its subscribers.

Comcast and NFL Network executives would not comment.


The status of the Time Warner systems is more clear. Time Warner/Adelphia markets “will be dark” in those markets as of early Friday, says the NFL’s Seth Palansky.About 1.3 million subscribers will be affected, including those in NFL hotbeds such as Buffalo, Cleveland and Dallas.

While noting the network may pursue some longer-term legal strategies going forward, Palansky says in the short term it will tweak its ad strategy in those markets to drive customers to outlets such as satellite carriers that air the NFL Network.

Time Warner had first removed the network from its lineup on August 1st before the FCC mandated it be put back on for 30 days.An additional 15-day extension was then negotiated, but Friday is its last day.

The NFL is pushing to get its network carried on basic cable packages as it looks to boost penetration after passing on $400 million in annual rights fees it could have commanded by selling the eight games to an outside network (one of the main bidders was Comcast’s OLN/Versus).The network is currently in 41 million homes, 27 million of those via satellite carriers.

The NFL has the ability to black out the eight games on any cable carrier not paying an increased surcharge it is demanding.

so what I'm reading into that is that NFL Network will still be on Comcast Basic, but the game package will be on the sports tier? Eh?

Check out the TV ratings in the link below. For example:

"... Fox's Dallas Cowboys-Jacksonville Jaguars game — the highest rating for anything on TV since American Idol's finale on Fox in May."

Anyone still think the NFL Network would be a "niche" channel?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2006-09-12-hiestand-nfl_x.htm

Don't forget to mention that with a rating of 14.3, the vast majority of viewers were watching something else. :D

so what I'm reading into that is that NFL Network will still be on Comcast Basic, but the game package will be on the sports tier? Eh?

Sounds like that could be the case.

Sounds like the NFL is beginning to blink. If they had half a brain, they'd wait it out a year - they certainly aren't hard up for the cash flow.

But they definitely lose the PR war if they attempt to single out TWC for "special" terms.

Way back when the NFL Network was first offered to Cable companies, they reneged on their "We will provided the channel so that everyone will be able to watch !" (Analog) promise. After a few Cable companies signed up, a couple of them were able to get the channel and place it where they wanted it because the NFL was in a hurry to get as many outlets as possible before that season started. They said that they would make changes in future contracts. All they did was open a door that the Cable companies put their big fat foot through.

Don't forget to mention that with a rating of 14.3, the vast majority of viewers were watching something else. :D

Actually, they're watching somewhere else: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6371902.html

"New data from Arbitron a suggests that a quarter to a third of NFL football viewing may be out-of-home--bars, restaurants, etc.--and thus flying under the traditional ratings radar."

Football is the one Sport that packs the Sports Bars across the Nation !

so what I'm reading into that is that NFL Network will still be on Comcast Basic, but the game package will be on the sports tier? Eh?


Still? They are not basic now - at least not on Comcast systems around here.

They are in the Digital Cable tier (ch. 180). Now what is interesting is that they already also duplicate the channel on ch. 275.

I'm hoping Comcast changes their mind and leaves the games on the tier it is on now...if they don't i hope they get enough angry phone calls to make em change it.

so what I'm reading into that is that NFL Network will still be on Comcast Basic, but the game package will be on the sports tier? Eh?

In Mass,it can be optained as part of one of the following tiers

Digital Plus
Sports Tier
Spanish Tier

Most digital subsctibers get the digital plus tier incluiding those who subscribe to one or more movie services.

I think what it means that it stays on the digital tiers that it is on.

Let's hope that's the case everywhere.

Still? They are not basic now - at least not on Comcast systems around here.

They are in the Digital Cable tier (ch. 180). Now what is interesting is that they already also duplicate the channel on ch. 275.

ah that makes sense, I've had digital so long I just consider that basic now!

Could be your 275 will be the channel they use for the pay sports tier that the NFL Net game package will be on.

Actually, they're watching somewhere else: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6371902.html

"New data from Arbitron a suggests that a quarter to a third of NFL football viewing may be out-of-home--bars, restaurants, etc.--and thus flying under the traditional ratings radar."

Football is the one Sport that packs the Sports Bars across the Nation !

My market has appx 1,000,000 TV households. A rating of 15 means that 150,000 homes are watching a game. If that only accounts for 2/3 to 3/4 of the viewers, that means that another 50,000 to 75,000 viewers are packed into sports bars. Yeah, right.....

My market has appx 1,000,000 TV households. A rating of 15 means that 150,000 homes are watching a game. If that only accounts for 2/3 to 3/4 of the viewers, that means that another 50,000 to 75,000 viewers are packed into sports bars. Yeah, right.....
What is your point ?
With your logic, NOTHING is worthy of being on tv since the majority of people won't be watching it. The fact is their are a lot of channels and other activities to occupy americans. But one would think that the highest ratings is the goal even if 51% is not obtainable.

As far as watching Football at bars, I wonder how many beer commercials are watched by patrons at a bar ready to order another beer.
Speaking of which I recommend the Michelob Ultra Amber to anyone that hasn't tried it. Very tasy for an ultra. :)

ah that makes sense, I've had digital so long I just consider that basic now!

Could be your 275 will be the channel they use for the pay sports tier that the NFL Net game package will be on.


275 is actually in the middle of $5/mo Sports Pack (HRTV, Fox College Channels, CSTV, Fox Soccer, Gol, NBA, Tennis, etc), so that might be the case. Although if you get 180, you currently get 275. Maybe they will switch that though.

The weird thing is that it has been this way for as long as they've had the NFL-N, so well before anyone knew that NFL-N would be carrying games (and become more of a premium).

I don't know what took the NFL Network so long, but they just started a anti-Cable web site:

http://www.iwantmynflnetwork.com/


According to this article:
http://www.bangornews.com/news/t/sports.aspx?articleid=140498&zoneid=147

"... 103,000 cable subscribers have contacted the NFL to complain about Time Warner's decision to drop the network." and that's before this current drop date.

Gee, the FCC takes action on 'decency' complaints from fringe groups with similar total numbers. I wonder if they'll take action on these complaints ? That's a lot for one service provider ! I also wonder how many simply called/wrote TWC or the FCC directly.

I don't know what took the NFL Network so long, but they just started a anti-Cable web site:

http://www.iwantmynflnetwork.com/

Well the have yet to get their "Full-time High Definition Channel" on Comcast. They aren't even showing the HD replays.

Some people are just finding out that they will not be able to see some of the games, even ones they 'think' are local:

http://www.chieftain.com/business/1158311612/3

No NFL Network to be offered here with basic cable

By KAREN VIGIL
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN
Unlike their neighbors in Colorado City and Rye, cable TV viewers in Pueblo won't be able to watch the Denver Broncos vs. Kansas City Chiefs NFL game on Thanksgiving Day.

Dan Buchanan, general manager of the local Comcast office, said Thursday that Pueblo subscribers who have basic cable service won't have that option of viewing the Broncos-Chiefs game. Only households with satellite TV or higher-priced cable service will have that option.

Cable TV viewers in Colorado City and Rye will be able to watch the game as part of the NFL Network offered on their TVision service.

Comcast's Buchanan said that come November Pueblo customers will be able to obtain the NFL channel for a starting cost of $48.94, which covers an enhanced package with a sports channel tier. Other Comcast packages also include the channel.
Buchanan said the NFL package is not included in basic cablevision because many customers do not want it.

= = =

Wow, for only $48.94 more, Americas most popular Sport can be had by all (in that cable area) ! I bet the public will send Thank You notes to Comcast.

any info on if cablevision will get nfl network?

What is your point ?
With your logic, NOTHING is worthy of being on tv since the majority of people won't be watching it.

Um, no.

The issue is with charging 100% of households for something that 86% have no interest in watching.

To the extent that channels don't come with large subscription fees, there is absolutely no problem with offering niche programming.

The point is simple. The statistics quoted sound like something Rush Limbaugh might pull out of his fat ass. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

By the way, didn't he do commentary on MNF awhile back??? He must have quit because he could find anyway to blame a bad call on Clinton.

And I guess the statistics that Time Warner uses on their lame web site slamming the NFL Network- are completely true and pure (like Clinton, eh?).

I challenge anybody who is objective (I'm not, and I know you're not) to look at the 2 web sites:

(TWC) www.getrealnfl.com
(NFL Network) www.iwantmynflnetwork.com

... tell me, which is more effective and who makes the better argument? To me, it's obvious-- but, then again I'm not objective.

To the extent that channels don't come with large subscription fees, there is absolutely no problem with offering niche programming.

What's your definition of "large subscription fees"? Is it more justifiable to offer four (or fifteen) $0.20 channels that 86% have no interest in than a single $0.80 channel?

TV Sports
Clock Expiring for TW, NFL?
By Mike Reynolds Multichannel News 9/16/2006

Barring a Hail Mary, last-second deal, Time Warner Cable was expected to drop NFL Network from several of its recently acquired Adelphia Communications and Comcast systems at midnight Saturday.

Sources close to both sides said no negotiations were expected to take place before the deadline, which means that more than 1 million former Adelphia and Comcast subscribers who received the channel under pacts the two operators previously inked with the National Football League will no longer receive the network.

Time Warner has not reached a carriage deal with league-owned channel, which will distribute eight regular-season NFL contests on Thursday and Saturday nights beginning on Thanksgiving.

Neither Time Warner nor NFL Network would comment on the matter.

Meanwhile, NFL Network and Comcast continued to talk about extending their current carriage deal. Comcast currently carries the service, but neither side would confirm reports that the MSO has the rights to distribute the NFL games -- a package valued at some $400 million -- through the life of the network’s six-year deal,

Sources close to the two sides said Comcast may air NFL Network as part of a newly created sports and information tier it is considering launching as early as January.

A Comcast spokeswoman would only say that the MSO “has a pre-existing affiliation agreement with the NFL. We are talking with the NFL but expect that we will make the games available on some level of service.”

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6372775

:

(TWC) www.getrealnfl.com
(NFL Network) www.iwantmynflnetwork.com

I think you meant:
http://nflgetreal.com/

Um, no.

The issue is with charging 100% of households for something that 86% have no interest in watching.

To the extent that channels don't come with large subscription fees, there is absolutely no problem with offering niche programming.
I was responding to Posg’s comment on ratings. The point was made that NFL kicks @ss in the ratings.
"... Fox's Dallas Cowboys-Jacksonville Jaguars game — the highest rating for anything on TV since American Idol's finale on Fox in May."
Posg pointed out that the majority of viewers weren’t watching since 51% were clearly doing something else. Then Dmon4u pointed out on top of the highest rating that even more were watching at bars and friends houses around the country.

Subscription fees didn't enter into this until your post. I was countering a point that ratings don't mean anything unless you get 51% of the viewers. But since I guess I won that argument since Posg is now bringing up Rush Limbaugh and you are now moveing the topic to fees.

Let me ask you this. Starting at the bottom of the ratings list for that NFL games time slot, how many channels would you have to add together to get the 14.5 rating ? And how much is the combined subscription fees ?
My guess would be those less watched channels are costing us more. And taking up space that could be filled with more popular HD channels.

I think you meant:
http://nflgetreal.com/

Oh, sorry about that. The name of the web site is almost as absurd as the content.

I was responding to Posg’s comment on ratings. The point was made that NFL kicks @ss in the ratings.
"... Fox's Dallas Cowboys-Jacksonville Jaguars game — the highest rating for anything on TV since American Idol's finale on Fox in May."
Posg pointed out that the majority of viewers weren’t watching since 51% were clearly doing something else. Then Dmon4u pointed out on top of the highest rating that even more were watching at bars and friends houses around the country.

Subscription fees didn't enter into this until your post. I was countering a point that ratings don't mean anything unless you get 51% of the viewers. But since I guess I won that argument since Posg is now bringing up Rush Limbaugh and you are now moveing the topic to fees.

Let me ask you this. Starting at the bottom of the ratings list for that NFL games time slot, how many channels would you have to add together to get the 14.5 rating ? And how much is the combined subscription fees ?
My guess would be those less watched channels are costing us more. And taking up space that could be filled with more popular HD channels.

Amen, bro.

So what relevance does your mean-spirited attack on Limbaugh have to do with anything being discussed in this thread?
Remember, Facts are as mean spirited to a Liberal as personal attacks to a Conservative. ;)

I think that 'posg' was trying to say that somehow Broadcastingcable and Arbitron have some sort of political or perhaps industry bias in regard to the story on the large numbers of viewers that are watching Football out-of-home (in Bars).

I fail to see any indication of that. If someone could point any bias out to me I'd be happy to acknowledge that, though nobody I know has ever noted anything like that previously in regard to those two media sources.

By the way, didn't he do commentary on MNF awhile back??? He must have quit because he could find anyway to blame a bad call on Clinton.

Actually it was the ESPN Sunday pregame show. From ESPN itself: http://espn.go.com/gen/news/2003/1002/1628778.html

"PHILADELPHIA -- Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh said Thursday he resigned from ESPN's "Sunday NFL Countdown" pregame show to protect network employees from the uproar over critical comments he made about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb."

Remember, Facts are as mean spirited to a Liberal as personal attacks to a Conservative. ;)

If that in fact is true (and we both know it really isn't) then I should change my post to read close to personal and mean-spirited.

And his post had nothing to do with facts -- or even opinions being voiced in this ponderous thread..

In addition, they were totally OT and a cheap shot. And not even an imaginative cheap shot at that.

Let me ask you this. Starting at the bottom of the ratings list for that NFL games time slot, how many channels would you have to add together to get the 14.5 rating ? And how much is the combined subscription fees ?
My guess would be those less watched channels are costing us more. And taking up space that could be filled with more popular HD channels.

Unfortunately, because of consolidation in the industry, it might be very difficult to figure out exactly what some of those low-rated channels are actually costing, since they are bundled in with higher rated channels. That's why the 20 million spinoffs of MTV, VH1, Discovery, and ESPN -- cable systems have to take, say, "VH1 Polka" in order to get a decent price on MTV. But that's a whole 'nother issue...and one that leads invariably back to the ongoing a la carte debate. Because, if viewers were able to elect which channels they wanted, we would instantly and accurately know what the demand was for everything from VH1 Polka to the NFL Network.

As it is, right now, we are all just speculating.

;) So what relevance does your mean-spirited attack on Limbaugh have to do with anything being discussed in this thread?

None, so I deleted it. Sorry, it was out of line. :o :o :o

I guess you're only allowed to be mean spirited if you get paid to be. ;)

Posg pointed out that the majority of viewers weren’t watching since 51% were clearly doing something else.

I think it was more like 85% doing something else.

NFL is gone on TWC w/ a note expalining why.

Clock Expires on Time Warner, NFL Network
By Mike Reynolds MultiChannel News 9/18/2006

Time Warner Cable dropped NFL Network from several of its recently acquired Adelphia Communications and Comcast systems at midnight Saturday.

More than 1 million former Adelphia and Comcast subscribers who received the channel under pacts the two operators previously inked with the National Football League lost the feed.

Time Warner hasn’t reached a carriage deal with league-owned channel, which will distribute eight regular-season NFL contests on Thursday and Saturday nights beginning on Thanksgiving.

Neither Time Warner nor NFL Network would comment on the matter.

Meanwhile, NFL Network and Comcast continued to talk about extending their current carriage deal. Comcast currently carries the service, but neither side would confirm reports that the MSO has the rights to distribute the NFL games -- a package valued at some $400 million -- through the life of the network’s six-year deal.

Sources said Comcast may carry NFL Network as part of a newly created sports and information tier it is considering launching as early as January.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6372775

Well those that are paying for HD Sunday Ticket are getting slightly screwed.

DirecTv pulled HDNET yesterday during Football, but TNT-HD usually.
http://www.tvpredictions.com/hdnetpause091706.htm

But that's not the screwing. My understanding is that if you have HD Sunday Ticket you get every game in HD that is being broadcast in HD baring blackouts of course. Well the Panthers vs Vikings were in HD locally but did not have an HD feed on Sunday Ticket. I wonder how many other HD games Sunday Ticket subscribers will miss due to DirecTv not having enough bandwidth. :(

Panthers game was NOT HD. It was widescreen SD.

Cable Tv Notebook
Time Warner Still in Talks With NFL Net
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 9/18/2006

Cable system owner Time Warner Cable says it is still in talks with the NFL Network about carriage of the 24-hour sports channel on the systems Time Warner purchased in divvying up bankrupt Adelphia with Comcast.

Time Warner Friday "deleted" the NFL Network from those systems as promised. It has not struck a carriage deal with the NFL Network for any of its systems, saying the sticking point is its desire to put the channel on a separate sports tier and the network's desire to see it on expanded basic.

When the company took over the Adelphia systems Aug. 1, it pulled the network, but had to reinstate it after the FCC ruled it had not provided the requisite 30-day warning. Time Warner then began giving notice, and last week pulled the channel again.

Time Warner spokesman Mark Harrad says the two sides are still talking, reports otherwise notwithstanding.

"Fred Dressler, our lead negotiator, reports having had conversations last week. We continue to talk to the NFL," says Harrad, who added that he was surprised that the NFL Network described the talks as having broken off. He called that characterization "inaccurate."

An NFL Network spokesman had not returned a call at press time.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6373182

Panthers were not in HD, that's why NFL ST didn't have a dedicated HD channel for it.

Well the Panthers vs Vikings were in HD locally but did not have an HD feed on Sunday Ticket. I wonder how many other HD games Sunday Ticket subscribers will miss due to DirecTv not having enough bandwidth. :(

Unless you had a local production of the game, it wasn't in HD. FOX produced the game in Widescreen only.

My bad. :o

The widescreen looked pretty good compared to regular SD. I guess when they don't have to stretch the source widescreen is better than SD.
I guess the replay on NFL-HD Net won't be in widescreen but I'll look and see.

Call me crazy, but I don't know what the big deal is about the NFL network. I think I understand the argument a little but from where I stand TWC and other Cable companies have a good reason not to give it. Here me out before the name calling starts. As a NYer, I have a fair amount of games a week. we have 2 teams that get broadcasted every sunday then we get the NBC and ESPN game also, 4 games maybe 5(like this week) I understand you see these games in HD you think they should all be in HD. But that is a whole different issue. I do understand that. I am here with you guys. But where does the NFL get off trying to charge 100 mil for only 8 games. That shouldn't be on a basic package because our basic service would skyrocket, We all don't want that. It should be a paid premium for thos eight games. Even the ladies that watch football would have enough of their fill sunday night if she had to watch those also.
But the NFL network is only carrying 8 late season games, I checked and checked and I still haven't see a release that all 8 games would be in HD, if I am wrong let me know. But this issue is an issue brought on by NFL and TWC to make each look like a bad guy. And we suffer. In my opinion, remember this is just a opinion. The viewing public needs to step in and say what we have to say and say it nicely. Make the CEO's get notice of our problems. My solution, NFL needs to know saturating their product might make them loose some fans. you might get back the casual viewer but by forcing your program on basic you will leave the other subscribers with a bill for shows the do not watch. The Premium is the best bet as long as the continue to give us the channels we get already in basic, If they try to create a new tier for all sports that would have the other side of the scale pinched with fees that weren't there before. In conclussion anything time warner has proposed looks to effect the consumer once again and we can't keep getting the shaft like this. FIOS is coming and Time warner needs to know that. It might not be better but it is a choice. And that is all we ask for. A choice!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are wrong. All eight game will be in HD.

And taking your argument to the extreme, exactly what channels should be on basic?

Why should non sports fan pay for the ESPNs, and the local RSN?

Why should women have to pay for TNT or Spike?

Why should people without kids have to pay for Disney or the other kids networks?

etc.

You are wrong. All eight game will be in HD.

And taking your argument to the extreme, exactly what channels should be on basic?

Why should non sports fan pay for the ESPNs, and the local RSN?

Why should women have to pay for TNT or Spike?

Why should people without kids have to pay for Disney or the other kids networks?

etc.
That is exactly my point. I told you I might be wrong about the games in HD and you corrected that, Thank you, But everthing else. We have a basic cable defined by the honchos which give us a little of everything including our reginal sports net. Ths is an extra tier that us regular subscribers shouldn't have to pay for. It should be included as part of the HD Extra, because it will be 8 HD games. Dispite all the positives in HD Sports is the main draw, pakage up the HD sports into a teir and you will see people buy it. The NFL isn't innocent either 100 mil for 8 games. That is insane, especially when you have aa NFL package deal already.

You are wrong. All eight game will be in HD.

And taking your argument to the extreme, exactly what channels should be on basic?

Why should non sports fan pay for the ESPNs, and the local RSN?

Why should women have to pay for TNT or Spike?

Why should people without kids have to pay for Disney or the other kids networks?

etc.

Basic cable needs to be a balance of programming for a variety of interests and demographics. Some news, some sports, some lifestyle, some family, etc...

Specialty tiers need to provide deeper access to genres that may not be of interest to all viewers...

Basic should be just that and only that. A little bit for everyone, but not an end all for anyone...

So ESPN does not belong on a specialty tier?

Come on.

There are so many channels in basic so TWC and other providers can jack up the prices and plead that it isn't their fault.

We both know that TWC, (to stay at least somewhat OT), is not paying anywhere near what it charges for its basic service.

...We have a basic cable defined by the honchos which give us a little of everything including our reginal sports net. ...

But why should "the honchos" decide what is in your basic tier. Why not give subscribers a variety of "basic" choices.

Those who don't like sports, for example, might get far more channels at a far lower cost, because the big-time fees charged by RSNs and the ESPNs wouldn't apply to them.

I realize that almost everyone on this forum is male and we all consider sports to be our inalienable right. But I say we should have to pay for the channels we like. The folks who don't ever watch ESPN (or wouldn't pay $10-$15 a month for the ESPN suite) shouldn't have to pay for our sports enjoyment.

Technically it would be very easy for cable and sat companies to offer smaller more concise (and far cheaper) packages. The Canadian satellite providers do.

But our U.S. providers realize that if they allowed even a small bundled version of a la carte they would lose the opportunity to soak us for dozens of channels we don't want. And, of course, many of those channels are precisely the ones the providers own or have an interest in.

Lets not forget that Basic Cable also has to include most all of the local OTA stations, plus community access channels. In a market like San Francisco that's about 24-30 stations.

And let's not forget that historically all of those have been free for cable operators -- even though they have provided, until the last few years, more than half the total viewing.

Specialty tiers need to provide deeper access to genres that may not be of interest to all viewers...

Basic should be just that and only that. A little bit for everyone, but not an end all for anyone...

Unfortunately, it's a lot of everything - and costs quite a bit of money. As long as that's the case, there's no justification to deny one man's tastes - especially for a channel that is in much more demand than the majority of pay channels offered in basic.

Cablevision tried the a la carte menu a few years back and it backed fired, There are stations they need to show to all of us (shopping comes to mind) low fee channels with high profits for all. Public access, and news. Then the big 20. the money makers. CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, And the CW. TNT, TBS, USA, FX. Lifetime, A &E, Comedy central, Scifi. History, discovery, and the cartoon networks. All these channels have to be in a "a la carte" system but who would buy anymnore. Just the sport fans which is missing all of the reginal under this plan, TWC is the only company in the area that includes all the the sports in the basic package. Which is something like $49. with these stations and then 100 more. Variety would just lead to more money as the packages would be smaller and you would need more of them.
All NFL talk aside, who is up up- set with the offering now? Think of it, there is at least 25 stations for shopping, 25 more for the ladies, 25 more for teens, 30 for kids. 30 channels for men including spike TV and the rest are public access or news.
Even with all theis MLB, NBA, NHL has a league pass. that should be the part that NFL network gets a pice of, Because this football fan is happy with the games he gets SD & HD. To pay more would be a crime against all us long time users of TWC. I hope I made my point clearer or just kept people on both edges of the debate. Good luck everyone!

Just check the Canadian model to see how it stacks up.

It is funny how when the cable/satellite providers don't actually own so many of the channels they aren't so insistent on loading us up with "baisc" channels we neither need nor want.

And I remind you again that many of those big moneymakers, the local channels, have so far gotten no payment from the cable companies, so they don't add a cent to the cost.

BOOM

NFL Network Feeling the Blitz from M-Bridge:

Just as the 2006 NFL season is getting underway with its new-look television coverage, the NFL Network is coming under pressure from both sides of the ball. And when taking a look at the predicament that the 24/7 football channel has gotten itself into, some are starting to wonder who is really to blame. Not only are MSOs chop-blocking the legs out from under the league's in-house TV station, but broadcasters too are turning up the heat in order to stay in the game.

According to reports, Comcast has initiated a plan that would move the NFL Network to a new digital sports and entertainment tier, notifying its systems everywhere that at the beginning of the year, the country's largest MSO will only carry NFLN on this restricted package. The move, Comcast officials said on a conference call last week, would kick in just two days after NFLN's last live game of 2006. Reports have also suggested the new tier would cost Comcast digital cable subs an additional $5 per month..

The switch would take NFLN off Comcast's basic AND second-level digital tiers, sacking the channel into a position of reaching far fewer than the 7 million customers said second-level reaches. Although the network has refused to comment on the conflict, league sources have vowed to fight such a move saying cable operators don't have the right to punt the network to a sports-only tier. NFLN reportedly is demanding that operators carry its programming on an expanded-basic basis which would pipe the net into more than 68 million households.

The NFL Network also launched a monster ad campaign urging fans to demand their cable systems carry the channel or switch to either DirecTV or DISH for their football fix: It's been deals with the satellite companies that have largely enabled NFLN to huddle up its roughly 41 million subscribers. Not to mention that cable operators don't like paying an inflated cost-per-subscriber licensing fee for the channel while the NFL so heavily promotes its "Sunday Ticket" package on DirecTV.

The Comcast news comes on the heels of Time Warner Cable's scheduled drop of the channel from more than one million homes in football-less Los Angeles, football-hungry Cleveland, football-consumed Dallas and football-wasteland, Buffalo. The week prior, Insight Communications refused to pay the net a surcharge on live game carriage.

And in just more bad business practice news, weeks before this latest run-in with MSOs the NFL told broadcasters that their own local news crews would no longer be allowed to cover the games from the sidelines. In repsonse, National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) President and CEO David Rehr recently sent a letter to the league's new Commissioner Roger Goodell urging him to reverse the "poorly thought out" and "discriminating" policy. On behalf of local broadcasters across the nation, Rehr asked league brass to reconsider the ban and "quickly repair the crucial link between NFL teams and their communities."

[QUOTE=nuttyinnyc]Technically it would be very easy for cable and sat companies to offer smaller more concise (and far cheaper) packages. The Canadian satellite providers do.

Tiering is easy when every TV set location has a set-top box. It is near impossible if they don't. While satellite subscribers have set-tops at every location, half of the cable subscribers have no set-tops at all, and the balance have second and third location TV's without them.

Neither an easy or cheap solution. And not having boxes has been a distinct marketing advantage for the cable industry.

But A La Carte is drifting off topic... :rolleyes:

TV Sports
NFL Network Is Counting on Fans to Pay a Lot for a Little
By Richard Sandomir The New York Times Sept. 19, 2006

The NFL Network, the television progeny of a league that knows better than all others how to mint money, is overreaching in its tough-minded campaign to prove its indispensability to fans in the cable TV universe.

The network is overselling the value of its eight-game Thursday-and-Saturday schedule, which will not begin until Thanksgiving. It is clearly in love with what it is offering. You can tell by what it is charging.

Basic arithmetic shows that at the rate it is demanding, at least 70 cents a subscriber every month, the NFL Network would amass $756 million in revenue if it were fully distributed to 90 million cable homes.

That is an astonishingly steep value to place on eight games — which will be simulcast on local stations in the teams’ markets — and an array of very good studio, news and archival programs. Still, that’s 357 days without games.

Until awarding itself the matchups, the network charged cable operators 20 cents a subscriber. It is now available in 41 million homes, two-thirds of them DirecTV and Dish Network satellite customers.

It takes serious guts to place a huge valuation on a handful of games shown over six weeks, without playoffs, but the league has seen how its ESPN games dominate cable by attracting about 8 percent or 9 percent of the cable world, then selling advertising off that rabid fan base.

Assuming full cable penetration, the $756 million valuation exceeds NBC, Fox, CBS or DirecTV’s average annual payments to the N.F.L., but it is less than ESPN’s $1.1 billion fee.

• A critical difference is that all but the NFL Network carry full-season schedules. NBC has 17 games and playoffs. CBS and Fox each carry, regionally or nationally, more than 100 games divvied into 25 or 26 Sunday afternoon singleheader and doubleheader windows, in addition to the playoffs. ESPN has 17 games, but no playoff games or Super Bowls, which CBS, Fox and NBC will rotate through 2011.

DirecTV’s Sunday Ticket satellite plan carries all 219 Sunday afternoon games to about 1.5 million subscribers for an annual payment to the league of $700 million. The N.F.L. has always sold the package exclusively to DirecTV, leaving it out of the reach of cable operators, who have long coveted it.

Having cast its lot with DirecTV, the league wants cable operators to swallow a large fee, which would inevitably find its way to consumers.

“To suggest that anybody’s season will be ruined for missing eight games is ludicrous,” said Fred Dressler, the executive vice president of Time Warner Cable, which is feuding with the NFL Network.

Cable operators are required to put the NFL Network on expanded basic, where the widest swath of customers exists. One key exception is Comcast, with 24 million subscribers the largest cable operator; it signed a deal three years ago that allowed it to put the NFL Network on a digital tier available to only a third of its customers — even if the eight games were added.

Still, there is a lively dispute over whether Comcast will eventually put the channel on a sports tier that will reduce its viewership to those willing to pay $5 or $6 a month to see it, NBA TV, CSTV and other networks.

Sports tiers have been little-viewed flops. For the NFL Network, being on a pay-per-view tier would be a terrifying financial prospect, slashing revenue and exposing it to the habits of subscribers who might buy the tier for two months, then drop it for the rest of the year.

“No one will ever have the right to do that,” said Seth Palansky, a network spokesman. Steve Bornstein, its president, was unavailable for comment.

Bornstein and owners spurned a Comcast bid worth at least $400 million to carry the eight games on OLN (newly rechristened Versus). It appears clear that Bornstein is betting that he can use the N.F.L.’s power to extract well more than that from cable, satellite and telephone customers. “Our value is commensurate with the programming we’re offering,” Palansky said.

In its tiff with Time Warner, the NFL Network is battling through an ad campaign designed to stoke the anger of cable customers. Time Warner is responding with a Web site geared to undermine the league’s position.

• Unable to strike a deal with the league, Time Warner last week stripped the channel from systems in Buffalo, Cleveland, Dallas and Los Angeles, systems that were recently acquired from Adelphia.

In one newspaper ad, the network cited Time Warner and Cablevision as holdouts and claimed quite hyperbolically that without it “you’ll miss the best games and the run to the playoffs.” The claim borders on deception, given how many games can be seen elsewhere and that there is no way to know how important they will be. Still, the tactics on all sides are predictable.

Dressler, of Time Warner, said, “The NFL Network keeps the pressure on because it believes we will ultimately end up charging all our customers to satisfy the few who want these games.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/sports/football/19sandomir.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=sports&pagewanted=print

Bornstein and owners spurned a Comcast bid worth at least $400 million to carry the eight games on OLN (newly rechristened Versus). It appears clear that Bornstein is betting that he can use the N.F.L.’s power to extract well more than that from cable, satellite and telephone customers. “Our value is commensurate with the programming we’re offering,” Palansky said.




Yeah - that's an interesting point. Comcast had already assigned a 'value' to 8 NFL games.

Frankly, I don't have a problem if Comcast throws it on a sports tier. I already subscribe to the sports pack during college hoops season, so 1 more month ($5) wouldn't be a big deal.

[QUOTE=fredfa]

Tiering is easy when every TV set location has a set-top box. It is near impossible if they don't. While satellite subscribers have set-tops at every location, half of the cable subscribers have no set-tops at all, and the balance have second and third location TV's without them.

Neither an easy or cheap solution. And not having boxes has been a distinct marketing advantage for the cable industry.

But A La Carte is drifting off topic... :rolleyes:
Cable will have to have set-top boxes soon enough. I don't know if TVs made today last as long as the ones made 20 years ago but 10,15,20 year old sets are common place now. Will TWC still be doing analog that long ?

And A La Carte is not off topic, it is the Answer to the topic. ;)

Yeah - that's an interesting point. Comcast had already assigned a 'value' to 8 NFL games.

Frankly, I don't have a problem if Comcast throws it on a sports tier. I already subscribe to the sports pack during college hoops season, so 1 more month ($5) wouldn't be a big deal.
If it goes on a sports pack $5 won't be the price.

$6 then.

$6 then.
I think if it goes in the basic tier, your right it would cost TWC about a dollar.
If it goes into a less subbed sports tier it would have to have a lot higher cost per sub.
And thats fine only the ones that want such a channel should have to pay for it. As long as I don't have to pay for Mtv, Lifetime, Oxygen, Nick and all the other channels I don't want. A La Carte is the answer not a Sports Tier unless they also create a Music Tier, Women Tier, News Tier, Kids Tier and so on.

The problem with Tiers instead of A La Carte is that it can never be Tiered enough. I don't like Baseball or Nascar so should I still have to pay to subsidize those if I pay for a Sports Tier. If you think that I should then what is the difference in making the subs of a Sports Tier pay for a channel they don't watch and making subs of a Basic Tier pay for a channel they don't watch?

To sum up this whole grief with NFL and TWC if everyone has to share the cost of Lifetime, Nick, Mtv and the like then the NFL Net should be no different.
A La Carte would solve this but until then I have to pay for crap I don't want and so should you.

A La Carte would solve this but until then I have to pay for crap I don't want and so should you.

Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner!!!

Truth be told, I probably watch 13 or 14 channels TOTAL.

Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner!!!

Truth be told, I probably watch 13 or 14 channels TOTAL.

According to studies, you are not alone.

As I recall, studies have shown an average family of four watches something like 20 channels in a given month.

According to studies, you are not alone.

As I recall, studies have shown an average family of four watches something like 20 channels in a given month.

Actually that's a pretty impressive number. Wouldn't be near that high under a per channel a la carte system however.

that is exactly why the cable companies don't offer A la carte service. We would focus to much time on our 20 channels rather then switching through everything and finding that nice meal on the cooking channel, that occasional learning channel topic or a crime drama from yesteryear on slueth. Shows like trading places wouldn't have been made popular if a la carte was a norm. The Shield to name a couple. But this is all off topic items. Back to the big bad NFL and the even greedier Cable companies!!

According to studies, you are not alone.

As I recall, studies have shown an average family of four watches something like 20 channels in a given month.
I would love to see this in a detailed billing format.
I know more than 20 channels would be on my list but sorted by minutes watched I would know which are on the list due to surfing. I could almost get by with just DISHs HD package + Nets, sprinkle in a few SD channels (like Sci-Fi and Spike) here and there and I would have a low-fat viewing feast.

If A La Carte were to happen you might see Hit Series like LOST spread out over sister stations. Imagine having to sub to Disney to see the season finale. :rolleyes:

It will be interesting to see/read the parallels with this NFL Network story vs the Fox News rate increases that are coming: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6373536.html?display=Breaking+News

The similarities are amazing (expect there's no talk of shunting the channel off into a tier):

"Fox News Warns Cablevision Subs

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

By Steve Donohue 9/19/2006 4:28:00 PMWith its 10-year carriage deal with Cablevision Systems approaching expiration, Fox News Channel ran three ads in local newspapers within the operator’s footprint Sunday, warning viewers that they could lose the channel within 30 days.

The move signaled that as the network’s carriage deals with DirecTV, Comcast and other major distributors begin to expire over the next several months, Fox News could seek to rally support from its wide fan base to nail deals with pay TV providers.

Fox News ran ads in the legal-notice sections of three newspapers that serve Cablevision subscribers -- The Journal News in Westchester County, N.Y.; and the Stamford Advocate and Greenwich Time in Connecticut. The network hasn’t purchased ads in newspapers distributed in markets with systems owned by Comcast and other affiliates.

Fox News vice president of affiliate marketing John Malkin told the Advocate that it is “standard operating procedure” to run notices alerting viewers that its signal could be interrupted or terminated. “It’s just a notification and not meant to be anything more than that,” he told the newspaper.

The network paid several affiliates upfront payments of $10 per subscriber when it debuted in 1996. Its current license fees run in the 25- to 30-cent-per-subscriber, per-month range.

After 10 years, Fox News is now the top-ranked all-news network, consistently beating rivals CNN and MSNBC. The network is looking to boost revenues from its success, pitching a rate card that would cost affiliates license fees of about $1 monthly per subscriber, senior VP of affiliate relations Tim Carry said in April.

Fox News is also looking to charge affiliates about 10 cents per subscriber to distribute a new business channel that it is aiming to launch in 2007.

Cablevision officials said the company is talking with Fox News about a new deal. “We are currently in negotiations with Fox News Channel and are hopeful of reaching an agreement,” the MSO said in a prepared statement."

= = =

Deja Vu !

I do not think that the NFL Network and Foxnews should be compared to each other. Foxnews is viewed all year long by those would prefer that channel over CNN, MSNBC, etc.. NFL network is more of a seasonal channel. Yeah I am sure that there are some people that will watch it throughout the year, but not everyday for long stretches of time. How many are viewing the NBA channel everyday, all year long. Yes I know the NFL is alot more popular then the NBA, but it still begs the question, how many viewers will the NFL Network have during the NFL's offseason. I myself agress with the cables companies on this one. The NFL is trying to force the cable companies to pay all year round, what they know is only going to be viewed half the year. If you think of viewers as items at a store, then I think that there would be more items being purchased the whole year through Foxnews, then there would be the NFL Network. Another thing is, If the NFL gets its way, then soon you can forget about any Local Stations carrying NFL games. It will be on cable channels only. If Foxsports Net can get a agreement with the NFL next time, then they could charge the cable companies $1.00 a sub to, instead of maybe the 5 or 10 cents they are charging now. Would not doubt if it is actually lower then that.

I do not think that the NFL Network and Foxnews should be compared to each other. Foxnews is viewed all year long by those would prefer that channel over CNN, MSNBC, etc.. NFL network is more of a seasonal channel. Yeah I am sure that there are some people that will watch it throughout the year, but not everyday for long stretches of time. How many are viewing the NBA channel everyday, all year long. Yes I know the NFL is alot more popular then the NBA, but it still begs the question, how many viewers will the NFL Network have during the NFL's offseason. I myself agress with the cables companies on this one. The NFL is trying to force the cable companies to pay all year round, what they know is only going to be viewed half the year. If you think of viewers as items at a store, then I think that there would be more items being purchased the whole year through Foxnews, then there would be the NFL Network. Another thing is, If the NFL gets its way, then soon you can forget about any Local Stations carrying NFL games. It will be on cable channels only. If Foxsports Net can get a agreement with the NFL next time, then they could charge the cable companies $1.00 a sub to, instead of maybe the 5 or 10 cents they are charging now. Would not doubt if it is actually lower then that.

As someone who has the NFLN, i can tell you that the NFL is not as seasonal as the average person thinks. The downtime is only about a month inbetween the end of the draft and the start of OTAs.

I thoroughly enjoyed watching the scouting combine, OTAs and mini camps from around the league. I work from home and the NFLN is on a minimum of 3 hours a day at my house.

I do agree with you on the local network coverage. By 2011, when the big 3 are up for contract renewal, thats when this will really get sticky.

As someone who has the NFLN, i can tell you that the NFL is not as seasonal as the average person thinks. The downtime is only about a month inbetween the end of the draft and the start of OTAs.

I thoroughly enjoyed watching the scouting combine, OTAs and mini camps from around the league. I work from home and the NFLN is on a minimum of 3 hours a day at my house.



Summerville must be a really wonderful place to live :rolleyes:

As one who has Fox News blocked I hope TWC will stop carrying it and decrease my bill. At the same time the pigs will fly :D

This NFLN debate -- which I would like to have and am willing to pay for -- has helped TWC push the whole ESPN2HD, ESPNU, ESPN360 off the map so they don't have to deal with that. So TWC takes a little heat and their bottom line gets bigger and the customer gets *******. :mad:

As one who has Fox News blocked I hope TWC will stop carrying it and decrease my bill. At the same time the pigs will fly :D

This NFLN debate -- which I would like to have and am willing to pay for -- has helped TWC push the whole ESPN2HD, ESPNU, ESPN360 off the map so they don't have to deal with that. So TWC takes a little heat and their bottom line gets bigger and the customer gets *******. :mad:

OK, I was wrong...its not Summerville...must be the whole state.

....If Foxsports Net can get a agreement with the NFL next time, then they could charge the cable companies $1.00 a sub to, instead of maybe the 5 or 10 cents they are charging now. Would not doubt if it is actually lower then that.

You can believe me or not, but the regional Fox Sport Nets (as well as the other major RSNs) get just about the same per sub fees as ESPN. People care about their local teams.

OK, I was wrong...its not Summerville...must be the whole state.The ocean, mountains and golf are just fine here in the sunny state of South Carolina. And yes we like our football.

As someone who has the NFLN, i can tell you that the NFL is not as seasonal as the average person thinks... No, to the average person, it IS seasonal, if the average person gives a darn at all. The question is, should the average person be forced to pay for a year of something which will be worthless to that average person except for a limited number of games?

Or perhaps a better question: When will the average person be able to pay for some middle ground between the "broadcast basic" tier and the $50-plus a month they pay for everything these corporations and sports leagues want to pile on?

The NFL is seasonal. The majority of people who watch the NFL games are not going to watch the NFLN during the off season, at least not on a daily basis. It will have it's moments, mostly close to the draft. The NFLN will not come close to competing with ESPN in terms of viewership. Which is really the point. The NFL wants ESPN type money, without actually bringing the same number of daily viewers. You said the downtown is only a month between the draft and the OTA's. OK, what about the Super Bowl and the draft. That is almost 3 months of downtime. I doubt a majority of people are going to stay tune to the NFLN, rather then just tuning into ESPN for NFL, plus other sports news. The NFLN is just a a network about the NFL. I think alot pf people are so pissed that some cable companies have not gotten the NFLN, that they have somehow convinced themselves that this channel is going to be as big ESPN, Foxnews, etc... I doubt when the NFL is in its offseason, that the viewership would equal that of the ESPN Classics. This would be different if the NFL asked for the price per sub during the season and then lowered it during the offseason. There not, there trying to tell the cable companies give us the same money every month, even though during the offseason there will be maybe 1/20th of the viewship. When you think about it, that is what they will get and everyone knows it. To me it makes no difference if Brighthouse/TWC cable gets the NFLN or not. I have both Directv and cable.

OK, I was wrong...its not Summerville...must be the whole state.


Not all places can be as exciting as Tampa where you go to die, or play canasta and bocce ball - then die. ;)

Not all places can be as exciting as Tampa where you go to die, or play canasta and bocce ball - then die. ;)


At least its doing something besides watching the NFL Network 3 hours a day 365 days a year ;)


The ocean, mountains and golf are just fine here in the sunny state of South Carolina. And yes we like our football.

You won't get to see the ocean, the mountains or golf watching NFLN for hours everyday either. Of course you come from the place that is only known for making Hammocks :D

OK, what about the Super Bowl and the draft. That is almost 3 months of downtime.

After the Super Bowl is the Pro Bowl. Then comes the scouting combine in Indianapolis. All of which interests me and I enjoy the coverage that the NFLN provides.

The NFL owns the rights to every piece of game footage known to man. NFL Films provides a wealth of entertainment. Its also NOT just a network about the NFL. They've already locked in a few college bowl games and Im sure it wont stop there.

ESPN didnt become as big as they are overnight. The NFLN is laying a foundation to become just that.

They've already locked in a few college bowl games and Im sure it wont stop there.

Great point. I'm not sure these games will be broadcast in local markets. What do you think will happen when "your" team is playing a bowl game and it's not on the local cable system? I can see this getting really ugly (for both sides).

After the Super Bowl is the Pro Bowl. Then comes the scouting combine in Indianapolis. All of which interests me and I enjoy the coverage that the NFLN provides.

And if you check the ratings, you'll find that the Pro Bowl is not of high interest, even to many NFL fans. The combine goes well beyond what interests the average fans. Of course the NFL is seasonal, although they have created just about a year-long news cycle.

I understand the channel is of great interest year round to you and some others here, but I'd imagine the average football spectator cares little about it and won't until the regular season games are there. Other than the regular season games, it's a niche channel demanding mainstream dollars.

The whole cable system is made up of niche channels. Just pick any channel and very few people watch it. Even the Super Bowl, which is the highest rated program, only gets about half the people to watch. So based on some of the logic of some of the posts not enough people watch that to show it on TV!

If I go to my local book store and ask for a book they will order it for me and I will pay for it and I have it. I may be the only one who ever bought that book from that store but I can get it. In the cable model if I ask for a channel they tell me to go to hell unless they want to carry it. It does not matter to them home many people are willing to pay for a service.

Because of the way TWC sells ESPNHD I already pay $7 a month for that(yes there are some other channels in that pack that we hardly ever watch or would pay for if ESPN was not a part of the pack), so why won't they sell other products I would like and let me decide if I am willing to pay for them. I buy many of the sports packages and am willing to pay for them but many people are not.

It still goes back to the 200+ channels we get and we watch maybe 15 of them on any kind of regular basis, many of the others we don't even know exist or care. But your list of 15 that you watch will be different so let me get what I want and I will pay for it.

Here is what I would like to see happen. Feel free to shoot this idea all to hell..lol.

All cable companies can carry the NFLN but, they must choose two of these three placement options. The NFL-HD broadcast would be part of the High Def tier and the SD broadcast would be put on either a sports tier or on the expanded basic tier.

Here is what I would like to see happen. Feel free to shoot this idea all to hell..lol.

All cable companies can carry the NFLN but, they must choose two of these three placement options. The NFL-HD broadcast would be part of the High Def tier and the SD broadcast would be put on either a sports tier or on the expanded basic tier.

I'll fire the first shot.:) Comcast doesn't have an HD tier.

I know 'some people' don't like Sports Radio but, at least once a week some Commentator will say that the only Sport that everyone will call in about year-around is the NFL.

They beg for Fans of NASCAR, NBA, NHL, Tennis, Soccer and the rest even during events and their seasons. The MLB, though, does gets heavy call-in's during it's pre-season, Season and post-season but not during it's off-season.

*** Call into one of these shows or E-Mail them about this, you'll hear the same story - 'The NFL has year-around interest.' It's the only Sport that has.... You will be ridiculed on-air if you even remotely suggest otherwise.

===
If the NFL Network gets widely carried it would join in ESPNs success:http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_7391.asp

"With two potentially great teams slugging it out in week two, ESPN had its best-ever showing in its 27-year history.

Monday night’s game pitting the Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers against the now 2-0 Jacksonville Jaguars averaged a 9.4 overnight Nielsen cable rating, up 8 percent over the 8.7 earned by last week’s Washington Redskins-Minnesota Vikings game. It also drew 9.81 million households. Final ratings are due out today.

It will likely be the second-most-watched program ever on basic cable, behind only CNN's 2003 NAFTA debate with Al Gore and Ross Perot seen by 11.17 million households.

Equally impressive, it was up 24 percent over the week two game of “Sunday Night Football” last year, which averaged a 7.6. Last year “SNF” aired on ESPN and “MNF” aired on ABC.

In fact, thus far “MNF” hasn’t been too far behind the opening-weeks averages from last year despite ESPN being available in roughly 30 million fewer homes than ABC. It just goes to prove that football fans will follow the games no matter where they are and don’t care whether it's cable or broadcast."

===

*** Strangely, some think this kind of Ratings success is meaningless is in regard to the question of just how popular Football is in this Country. The NFL Network has the potential of having 8 of highest Rated shows (within the top 20 ?) on all of Cable over the next year if large numbers of Fans are not deprived of the channel by Cable Companies.

Monday night’s game pitting the Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers against the now 2-0 Jacksonville Jaguars averaged a 9.4 overnight Nielsen cable rating, up 8 percent over the 8.7 earned by last week’s Washington Redskins-Minnesota Vikings game. It also drew 9.81 million households. Final ratings are due out today.

Equally impressive, it was up 24 percent over the week two game of “Sunday Night Football” last year, which averaged a 7.6. Last year “SNF” aired on ESPN and “MNF” aired on ABC.


Well, for comparison, the Ohio State - Texas game had an estimated 13.2 million viewers. So I guess CSTV and ESPNU should be on the expanded basic tier.

The only thing keeping the NFL in the news throughout the year are the constant reports of the players commiting felonies, including drugs, rapes, robbery, and murder.

1) And you can predict that certain games (and/or a certain number of games) on those channels will always provide those Ratings ? NFL Ratings are the most consistent in all of Sports.

2) And Football is worse than all/any of the other Sports in that regard ?

The whole cable system is made up of niche channels. Just pick any channel and very few people watch it. Even the Super Bowl, which is the highest rated program, only gets about half the people to watch. So based on some of the logic of some of the posts not enough people watch that to show it on TV!

Your joking with that comment right? I guess the way you put, every cable channel should demand .70 to .90 cents a sub. If TWC does not give it to them, we all should complain about how TWC is wrong for not giving in.

Last time I heard TWC has not refused to carry the channel, it has refused to do it under the terms that the NFL wants. Why are most of the people saying that TWC should give the NFL what they asking as opposed to saying the NFL should lower there fees. I have read some posts about Time-Warners records profit this year. Well what about the profits made by the NFL. You think maybe they had some record profits too? Is it ok for them to make more money, but how dare a cable company!! Do they really need the extra 500 to 600 millions dollars a year they will make with there demands. You think if they get this, they will lower ticket prices at the stadiums? Maybe lower the price of beer, hot dogs, etc.. Better yet, maybe they will stop asking all the taxpayers to fund a brand new stadium for a team. With that extra money they can build a brand new stadium every year without any public funds.

Your joking with that comment right? I guess the way you put, every cable channel should demand .70 to .90 cents a sub. If TWC does not give it to them, we all should complain about how TWC is wrong for not giving in.

Last time I heard TWC has not refused to carry the channel, it has refused to do it under the terms that the NFL wants. Why are most of the people saying that TWC should give the NFL what they asking as opposed to saying the NFL should lower there fees. I have read some posts about Time-Warners records profit this year. Well what about the profits made by the NFL. You think maybe they had some record profits too? Is it ok for them to make more money, but how dare a cable company!! Do they really need the extra 500 to 600 millions dollars a year they will make with there demands. You think if they get this, they will lower ticket prices at the stadiums? Maybe lower the price of beer, hot dogs, etc.. Better yet, maybe they will stop asking all the taxpayers to fund a brand new stadium for a team. With that extra money they can build a brand new stadium every year without any public funds.

Amen !!!!

NFL-HD did have the replay of the Panthers game on last night in HD. They must have upconverted the Fox-Widescreen, because it looked really good and was listed as HD.

OT: Before preseason the Panthers and Redskins were listed as Superbowl contenders now both 0-2. Curse you Vikings !!!
When does College Basketball start ? :rolleyes:

In fact, thus far “MNF” hasn’t been too far behind the opening-weeks averages from last year despite ESPN being available in roughly 30 million fewer homes than ABC. It just goes to prove that football fans will follow the games no matter where they are and don’t care whether it's cable or broadcast.
Has there been a huge new uptake in cable/DBS this fall among those 30 million households that lost MNF? Didn't think so.

Take ESPN out of the big bundle and then see how many fans follow when they have to pay for it directly. Disney already knows this in their gut, which is why they keep fighting a-la-carte tooth and nail.

In fact, thus far “MNF” hasn’t been too far behind the opening-weeks averages from last year despite ESPN being available in roughly 30 million fewer homes than ABC. It just goes to prove that football fans will follow the games no matter where they are and don’t care whether it's cable or broadcast."

===



oh really? Might want to check your source.

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

From: franknmagidassociates
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 4:08 AM
Subject: Magid Morning Facts 9/21/06


Magid Morning Facts™

Thursday, September 21, 2006


HOW STRONG IS MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL? – Some might say that Monday Night Football moving from ABC to ESPN was a great move, while others would argue that parent company Disney made a questionable call in changing this decades-long tradition. The correct answer likely depends on your perspective at this point.

Monday night’s game between the Jacksonville Jaguars and Pittsburgh Steelers drew the second-largest audience in cable history (10.6 rating, 13.3 million viewers). Even so, that figure put Monday Night Football behind NBC and CBS for the night – something that would have happened rarely in the past.

Although it’s ushering in high cable numbers, MNF still placed well behind last year’s Monday-night audience figures. ESPN reported a total audience of 12.57 million viewers for its season debut, compared with 19.598 million for the 2005 opener; that’s a 36% drop from a year ago.


Bold emphasis are mine

But, it's easy to call something a winner, providing you forget to mention there were others in the race.

Roberts Calls for Sports Dialogue

By Ted Hearn MultiChannel News 9/21/2006

Washington -- Comcast chairman and CEO Brian Roberts Thursday called for an industry debate on whether all cable subscribers or just die-hard fans should absorb the cost of expensive sports networks.

“I think it’s time to call for a dialogue, a serious dialogue on this subject. We would be very willing to participate without pre-conditions as to what the solution is. And I think there’s a lot at stake and it’s accelerating and it’s the moment right now,” Roberts said in a question period after a speech to the Progress & Freedom Foundation here.

Pressure was building, he added, as a result of network launches by professional sports leagues and college associations. He noted that in July, the U.S. Olympic Committee revealed that it was considering its own 24-hour network.

“Who pays for that channel, and is that going to be all viewers or those who are sports fans?” Roberts said.

Roberts -- whose company pushed into sports programming long ago -- raised an issue that has soured relations between cable operators and sports programmers in recent years. More and more, operators want to create sports tiers to take pricing pressure off expanded basic and reduce regulatory pressure. Last week, Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin called expanded basic a “tying” arrangement.

But sports channels like ESPN, which is owned by Disney, insist on broad distribution in order to create the lowest per-channel price possible and maximize advertising revenue.

Craig Moffett, a cable analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein, said a sports tier without ESPN would not appeal to many customers.

“If you are going to get the customers to eat the dog food, you may have no choice but to have ESPN on a tier,” Moffett said. “ESPN may simply hold too many cards to ever be relegated to sports tiers.”

Comcast, under pressure from the FCC, caved in last month and launched Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, the pay TV home of Major League Baseball’s Washington Nationals. The MSO raised expanded-basic rates by $2 per month for 1.6 million customers to cover MASN’s cost -- a move that drew negative publicity. Comcast had balked at carrying MASN largely over the regional sports network’s license-fee demands.

Roberts alluded to the MASN dispute by suggesting that in the eyes of regulators, fan access to the games of the home team right now seems to outweigh cable operators’ interests in managing costs.

“There is something different about sports than every other type of programming because of the nature of the product itself. It’s sort of tough to live without because of the localness of the sports,” Roberts said. “If you try to do that [not offer sports], as we well know, that can be very painful.”

He added that he wanted to draw attention to the issue because sports channels are proliferating and driving up bills. New York-area cable subscribers, he said, pay about $100 per year for sports programming, whether they watch sports or not. “I think that’s getting to be a lot of money,” Roberts said.

Regarding solutions, Roberts said the problem was complicated and his own company was “clearly conflicted” because “we own some teams in Philadelphia, we own some regional sports networks and we’re obviously a distributor.”

In a response to a question about whether he was advocating that sports fans should foot the bill, Roberts said he wasn’t taking a stand.

“I am not sure that is the answer,” he said. “I don’t know the answer, but I’m here to tell you that I’m worried that there is a sea change occurring, a tipping point, with the amount of new sports channels that are getting created and how that cost gets distributed.”

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6374301.html?display=Breaking+News

Geesh..the sports programing Apocalypse is upon us.

I'm willing to be no Comcast owned sports net channels would be moved off basic and into these sports tiers. It a complete hypocrisy. TW and now comcast claming these channels such as the nfl network should be put in a sports tier becasue most people shouldn't have to pay for a channel they don't watch. But when it comes to comcast sports nets, or Sportnet NY channel which they both own, they have no problem force feed them on basic to customers. This is the same b.s. cablevision pulled durring the YES network fiasco in NY which is why you see more people siding with the NFL network.

What are the possibilities of congressional/FCC hearings on all of this before its all said and done.

I suppose if they can call cheating baseball players into hearings...

people shouldn't have to pay for a channel they don't watch.
I only like the cheery filled in a box of chocolates. Should I not be able to demand the candy store owner take it out of the box and sell me just that one?

I only like the cheery filled in a box of chocolates. Should I not be able to demand the candy store owner take it out of the box and sell me just that one?

So i guess its ok if the candy store owner also manufactures his own candy but only sells his compeditors candy peice meal for a premium in which which he keeps the profits while selling his manhfatured candy complete and thus killing his competition. All I'm saying is its amazing the channels they choose to fight with. If they are all worried about people paying for channels they don't watch then how about setting the example and starting with the channels they own. Comcast foughts tooth and nail to get OLN off sports tiers and on to basic so I call complete B.S. in this latest statement from comcast.

The truth of the matter is TW wants to cash in on a sports Tier which they can make a profit on and they see the NFL network as a big draw to get people to sign up. In comcast case they are just pissed of the they lost the nationals and orioles so all of a sudden they don't like the current structure.

The perfect example how over priced and a complete joke sports tiers are goes on in NY where cv has a sports tier of 3 fox college network,golf,Fuel,The outdoor channel,Goltv and TVG. These for 5 bucks a month. Now I don't know the exact prices of each channel but they certainly don't add up to any where close 5 bucks a month. I have no problem with a company making a profit but don't tell me you want a sports tier to save people money.

I only like the cheery filled in a box of chocolates. Should I not be able to demand the candy store owner take it out of the box and sell me just that one?


I told you things were exciting in South Carolina.

http://store.candywarehouse.com/cellascherries.html

Come on guys. Life is not just a bowl of cherries in a hammock. Or is it?

That, and sippin' whiskey on the front porch. ;)

oh really? Might want to check your source.

HOW STRONG IS MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL?

...

Monday night’s game between the Jacksonville Jaguars and Pittsburgh Steelers drew the second-largest audience in cable history (10.6 rating, 13.3 million viewers). Even so, that figure put Monday Night Football behind NBC and CBS for the night – something that would have happened rarely in the past.

Although it’s ushering in high cable numbers, MNF still placed well behind last year’s Monday-night audience figures. ESPN reported a total audience of 12.57 million viewers for its season debut, compared with 19.598 million for the 2005 opener; that’s a 36% drop from a year ago.


Bold emphasis are mine

But, it's easy to call something a winner, providing you forget to mention there were others in the race.

I'm not sure that comparing MNF on Cable to MNF on Broadcast is anything but Apples vs. Oranges.

But, getting back to your final point...

Looks like the tables turned ("others in the race"): http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6375457.html?display=Breaking+News



"ESPN's MNF Breaks Ratings Record

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

By Steve Donohue 9/26/2006 9:33:00 PM

ESPN drew a record 11.8 rating (14,999,000 viewers two-plus) to its Monday Night Football game, which featured the New Orleans Saints' return to the Louisiana Superdome for the first time since Hurricane Katrina.

The Saints-Falcons game, which also featured a pregame performance from bands U2 and Green Day, was the highest-rated program in ESPN history. It was also the top program on both broadcast or cable networks Monday night. "


= = =

Bold ( and color ) emphasis are mine.



Football Ratings (College and Pro) are going higher on average on almost all counts - comparing Cable-to-Cable and Broadcast-to-Broadcast from last year !

It's a sham(e) that Cable companies are trying to force people to pay extra for Digital or Sports Tiers to get America's favorite Sport and National Pastime. If the NFL Network games do not get the Ratings they should starting at Thanksgiving, it will be because Cable has made it hard (and expensive - Comcast can be as high as $48.94 extra in some areas ) for America to get the channel - whereas the NFL Network wants it available to as many as possible.

I'm not sure that comparing MNF on Cable to MNF on Broadcast is anything but Apples vs. Oranges.

But, getting back to your final point...

Looks like the tables turned ("others in the race"): http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6375457.html?display=Breaking+News



"ESPN's MNF Breaks Ratings Record

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

By Steve Donohue 9/26/2006 9:33:00 PM

ESPN drew a record 11.8 rating (14,999,000 viewers two-plus) to its Monday Night Football game, which featured the New Orleans Saints' return to the Louisiana Superdome for the first time since Hurricane Katrina.

The Saints-Falcons game, which also featured a pregame performance from bands U2 and Green Day, was the highest-rated program in ESPN history. It was also the top program on both broadcast or cable networks Monday night. "


= = =

Bold ( and color ) emphasis are mine.



Football Ratings (College and Pro) are going higher on average on almost all counts - comparing Cable-to-Cable and Broadcast-to-Broadcast from last year !

It's a sham(e) that Cable companies are trying to force people to pay extra for Digital or Sports Tiers to get America's favorite Sport and National Pastime. If the NFL Network games do not get the Ratings they should starting at Thanksgiving, it will be because Cable has made it hard (and expensive - Comcast can be as high as $48.94 extra in some areas ) for America to get the channel - whereas the NFL Network wants it available to as many as possible.

That's really interesting as NBC claimed tonight on a promo that 25 Million tuned in to seeHeros on Monday night - and last I heard 25 Million was higher than 14 Million.

Now I am curious to check and see who's really telling the truth.

And btw, 14.9Million is still less than the 19 Million last year, unless 19 Million and 25 Million are both less than 14.9 Million in some parallel universe.

EDIT: Maybe NBC is as good as others with their numbers as I have no idea where the 25 Million number they in Tuesday Promos for Heroes came from:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8519362&&#post8519362

But I also suspect part of ESPN's Monday Night numbers were U2 and Green Day - not Football. Next week will tell.

25 million is for peak viewership. It is a misleading stat but it isn't a lie. The broadcast networks always use peak numbers to promote the show better. Wouldn't you want to see how good a show it is, if someone told you 25 million people were watching it instead of 14 mil.
NBC averaged 14 million for the complete hour. Which was good enough to win the time period. The Fooball game came in third for the night which is low for a monday night game but high (record) for ESPN. Comparing ESPN to ABC isn't fair because Cable networks have low rating to begin with. But 14.9 mil is impressive.

25 million is for peak viewership. It is a misleading stat but it isn't a lie. The broadcast networks always use peak numbers to promote the show better. Wouldn't you want to see how good a show it is, if someone told you 25 million people were watching it instead of 14 mil.
NBC averaged 14 million for the complete hour. Which was good enough to win the time period. The Fooball game came in third for the night which is low for a monday night game but high (record) for ESPN. Comparing ESPN to ABC isn't fair because Cable networks have low rating to begin with. But 14.9 mil is impressive.

I totally understand the ESPN has 30 Million less homes available than ABC.

However, again, better read what he posted, even though I am beginning to see more and more errors in stories from even so called reputable news sources:

I'm not sure that comparing MNF on Cable to MNF on Broadcast is anything but Apples vs. Oranges.

But, getting back to your final point...

Looks like the tables turned ("others in the race"): http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6375457.html?display=Breaking+News



"ESPN's MNF Breaks Ratings Record

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

By Steve Donohue 9/26/2006 9:33:00 PM

ESPN drew a record 11.8 rating (14,999,000 viewers two-plus) to its Monday Night Football game, which featured the New Orleans Saints' return to the Louisiana Superdome for the first time since Hurricane Katrina.

The Saints-Falcons game, which also featured a pregame performance from bands U2 and Green Day, was the highest-rated program in ESPN history. It was also the top program on both broadcast or cable networks Monday night. "


Now, was the football game 3rd for the night as you state or was it the top rated program on broadcast or cable Monday night?

Regardless, its still down from the 19 Million opener last year on ABC.

I am also not sure about that peak number as you classified it and will have to think about that one at a decent hour. That means you would have to have an incredibly high churn and replacement between the 2 half hours.

Now, maybe people watched Green Day and U2 and then punched out to NBC, which I guess is a possibility, but honestly I'd rather not speculate and get the real numbers, which I will do in the morning.

Here's an unbiased story on skyreport.com

NFL Enjoys Top Ratings Across the Board
Gone are the summer days when baseball - America's most boring, er- favorite pastime - is all a sports fan had when longing for some televised athletic competition. The gridiron is back, if you couldn't tell, and the National Football league's ratings during the past week have many pondering what DirecTV has long known: football - not baseball - is this country's favorite sport.
The New Orleans Saints' home opener against the Atlanta Falcons at the Superdome on Monday night drew the highest rating ever for ESPN and was the highest-rated program of the night on any network, broadcast or cable. In the first game in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina 13 months ago, the Saints' 23-3 route of the Falcons tallied a rating on 11.8 reaching nearly 11 million homes, ESPN said.

According to Nielsen Media Research, last week's pigskin action ranked first in ratings in more than half of NFL markets - excluding New Orleans - featuring the premieres of several prime-time programs on the broadcast networks. Of the 29 NFL markets, football topped the ratings in 18, followed by the premiere of Grey's Anatomy in six markets and CSI's and Desperate Housewives' premiere in two other markets each.

Among some of the highest ratings - arguably a reflection of some of the best NFL fans across the country - were in the markets of Minneapolis with 71 percent of household share, Pittsburgh (69 percent), Milwaukee (67 percent), Cincinnati (65 percent) and Buffalo, ahem, with 62 percent. Maybe western New York isn't a football wasteland after all...

And TWC still does not see a need to add NFLN -- corporate greed plain and simple.
Buffalo, ahem, with 62 percent

I totally understand the ESPN has 30 Million less homes available than ABC.

However, again, better read what he posted, even though I am beginning to see more and more errors in stories from even so called reputable news sources:




Now, was the football game 3rd for the night as you state or was it the top rated program on broadcast or cable Monday night?

Regardless, its still down from the 19 Million opener last year on ABC.

I am also not sure about that peak number as you classified it and will have to think about that one at a decent hour. That means you would have to have an incredibly high churn and replacement between the 2 half hours.

Now, maybe people watched Green Day and U2 and then punched out to NBC, which I guess is a possibility, but honestly I'd rather not speculate and get the real numbers, which I will do in the morning.
This is from
thefutoncritic.com
A good source of TV next day ratings.

BURBANK, Calif. September 26, 2006 Paced by the series debut of "Heroes," which posted the highest rating for any NBC drama premiere in five years, NBC won its second Monday night of the 2006-07 season in adults 18-49, according to updated "live plus same day" viewing figures from Nielsen Media Research.

Versus the second Monday night of last season, NBC's performance last night was up by 18 percent in adults 18-49 and up by 17 percent in overall total viewers.

At 9 p.m. ET, the debut of "Heroes" (5.9 rating, 14 share in 18-49, 14.1 million viewers overall) delivered NBC's highest 18-49 for any fall drama premiere in five years (since "Crossing Jordan" on Monday, Sept. 24, 2001). It's also the highest-rated premiere of a 9 p.m. ET drama on any network since "Desperate Housewives" launched on Sunday, Oct. 3, 2004. "Heroes" soared above the time period competition in the key demographic of adults 18-49, with a 37 percent margin of victory over second place (5.9 vs. a 4.3 for CBS' comedies). "Heroes" also won the hour in adults 18-34, adults 25-54, total viewers and other key measures.

"Heroes" was up 48 percent versus NBC's 2005-06 season average in the time period, excluding sports (5.9 vs. 4.0). From its first half-hour to its second, "Heroes" grew by 11 percent (to a 6.2/15 from a 5.6/14) and by 1.1 million viewers overall.

"Heroes" finished within one tenth of an 18-49 rating point of the highest rating so far this fall for any new series premiere, close behind Sunday's debut of "Brothers & Sisters" on ABC. By comparison, "Brothers & Sisters" benefited from a 9.6 lead-in rating in 18-49 from "Desperate Housewives," while "Heroes" had a 3.8 rating lead-in last night.

The powerful "Heroes" premiere will be rebroadcast on NBC tonight at 8 p.m. ET and on the SCI FI Channel this Friday, September 29, at 7 p.m. ET.

NBC kicked off Monday night at 8 p.m., ET with "Deal or No Deal" (3.8/10 in 18-49, 13.0 million viewers overall), which finished #1 in its time period in adults 18-49, total viewers and other key measures. "Deal" was up 31 percent in 18-49 versus NBC's results in this time period on the same night last year.

At 10 p.m. ET, "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" (4.2/11 in 18-49, 10.8 million viewers overall) was up 5 percent in adults 18-49 versus NBC's season average for the time period last year (4.2 vs. 4.0, excluding sports). "Studio 60" ranked #2 in the time period in most key demographics and #1 among men 18-34.

Updated 18-49 averages for Monday night are: NBC, 4.7/12; CBS, 4.4/11; Fox, 2.8/7; ABC, 2.7/7 and CW, 1.1/3. In overall total viewers, September 25 updated results are: CBS, 13.4 million; NBC, 12.6 million; Fox, 7.5 million; ABC, 6.4 million; CW, 3.2 million

Judging by these number I misled people about the NBC victory. During Heroes it was 14.1 while ESPN had 14.9 viewers foir the entire game. But as for your question about switching channels. The 25 million is NBC's high "estimate" of viewers during the hour, how they get it is beyond me. My understanding is the big 4 always give us the high estimate to make it look better then it is. Cable stays true and just gives the average of the time period. But it is true a lot of people switched channels during that hour. Everyone switches during the comercial it is just a matter of who comes back. That is where everthing gets complicated and that is why they have Neilsen during the ratings books. Hope this clarifies Monday's ratings battle. Either way Heroes looks like a winner and will be here for months to come.

This is from
thefutoncritic.com
A good source of TV next day ratings....

There are several major reasons why I don't post TFC's ratings report in the "Hot Off The Press" thread.

1--I find Marc Berman's analysis (based on what advertisers, not networks, are thinking) more pertinent,

2--Neither TFC or zap2it routinely post the numbers of viewers. Many of us who aren't CPAs have a hard time dealing with and comparing the various ratings numbers. And, as has been noted, the networks are brilliant at deftly massaging those ratings figures to have them mean whatever they seem to want, and

2--The Futon Critic specifically requests, at the top of each of its ratings reports that readers should "PLEASE DO NOT COPY OR REPRODUCE THIS INFORMATION TO OTHER WEB SITES, FORUMS, NEWSGROUPS, ETC."

Since it specifically requests that its information not be reposted, I think FTC's wishes should be respected.

OT:

fredfa, I really enjoy your "Latest Ratings" posts. I wish I had been aware of its usefulness last year when the wife and I became wrapped up in "Invasion" and "Surface". We miss those two shows.

Glad to see Heroes and Jericho are hanging in there this season. Maybe they can survive. The two of us have a knack for getting into shows that dont last...go figure. i.e. Joan of Arcadia and Judging Amy along with the above mentioned two.

Thanks.

There are several major reasons why I don't post TFC's ratings report in the "Hot Off The Press" thread.

1--I find Marc Berman's analysis (based on what advertisers, not networks, are thinking) more pertinent,

2--Neither TFC or zap2it routinely post the numbers of viewers. Many of us who aren't CPAs have a hard time dealing with and comparing the various ratings numbers. And, as has been noted, the networks are brilliant at deftly massaging those ratings figures to have them mean whatever they seem to want, and

2--The Futon Critic specifically requests, at the top of each of its ratings reports that readers should "PLEASE DO NOT COPY OR REPRODUCE THIS INFORMATION TO OTHER WEB SITES, FORUMS, NEWSGROUPS, ETC."

Since it specifically requests that its information not be reposted, I think FTC's wishes should be respected.


Not anymore. this is why I posted it. I do respect the site and would never do anything that they wouldn't like because I read them everyday. Their site is very informative, but that warning has been removed. I checked all links and can not find their old request all I saw was the new message

"The above press release was issued by the aforementioned network and/or company. Any errors, typos, etc. are attributed to the original author. The release is reproduced solely for the dissemination of the enclosed information."

I checked all links and can not find their old request all I saw was the above message.
In case you are wondering dissemination means to distribute or spread something, especially information, or become widespread

If I am wrong let me know I do not want to step on anybodies toes. I was just giving info that I thought could be shared.

And TWC still does not see a need to add NFLN -- corporate greed plain and simple.
Buffalo, ahem, with 62 percent

Well, TWC should not add NFL-HD based on viewing a game THAT WAS AVAILABLE ON TWC.

4 live games - 12 hours of programming and you want them to pay for a channel that wants top tier status 8,736 hours a year.

I'm for TWC on this one.

Well, TWC should not add NFL-HD based on viewing a game THAT WAS AVAILABLE ON TWC.

4 live games - 12 hours of programming and you want them to pay for a channel that wants top tier status 8,736 hours a year.

I'm for TWC on this one.

I'm not going to comment on the business decision of not carrying the channel - both the cable comanies and the NFl are trying to make as much money as possible from it, as they should.

I just want it to get sorted out, as I don't want to miss any nationally televised games this year. Being in NY, there are only so many chances i get to see the Seahawks live, and one of those is a thursday night game on the NFL network this year. I'd hate to miss it.

Hell, the satellite companies have a 30 day out from install in most states.

If it really eats you up, install and cancel within the first 30 days saying it doesn't look right.

That will give you the 4 NFL-HD games and serve them right for the NFL own strong arm/blackmail tactics.

You do know that most big screen TV's are sold in January - and returned to stores right after the SuperBowl?

Hell, the satellite companies have a 30 day out from install in most states.

If it really eats you up, install and cancel within the first 30 days saying it doesn't look right.

That will give you the 4 NFL-HD games and serve them right for their own strong arm tatics.

Unfortunately I'm unable to go with satellite, as my condo association has yet to approve the install of dishes. Cable is my only choice right now.

Unfortunately I'm unable to go with satellite, as my condo association has yet to approve the install of dishes. Cable is my only choice right now.

Have them mount a NPR on your balcony and then cancel saying the Condo Association demanded it be taken down as it was in a common area which the installer did not get proper authority to install in.

Have them mount a NPR on your balcony and then cancel saying the Condo Association demanded it be taken down as it was in a common area which the installer did not get proper authority to install in.

Because of the way the development is designed, I'd need condo approval anyway, as the dish would have to be mounted on the roof of the building - there's nowhere I have access to that would have the correct outlook.

As I understand the federal law, condo associations are not allowed to forbid satellite dishes -- at least the smaller Dish and DirecTV versions (anything under 36" in diameter).

Few condo associations care to deal with the law, but it exists. Check fcc.org.

Well, TWC should not add NFL-HD based on viewing a game THAT WAS AVAILABLE ON TWC.

4 live games - 12 hours of programming and you want them to pay for a channel that wants top tier status 8,736 hours a year.

I'm for TWC on this one.

The Buffalo reference was to the interest in the NFL. BTW the NFLN carries 24/7 football mainly pro and I would like to have that. I am willing to pay for that but TWC will not give its customers what they want. NFLN is only one example of TWC greed and lack of caring for its customer base.

It still goes back to the fact that we or anyone watches very few of the channels that any cable system gives you. I pay extra for most of the channels we watch. I buy the college football package, the MLB package and the NHL package. I am willing to pay for them. I would like to see replays of the team I care about in the NFL since where I live they are never on and I cannot have a dish. But TWC won't let me pay for the NFLN -- all I am asking for is the choice.

I'll let your math error slip.

The Buffalo reference was to the interest in the NFL. BTW the NFLN carries 24/7 football mainly pro and I would like to have that. I am willing to pay for that but TWC will not give its customers what they want. NFLN is only one example of TWC greed and lack of caring for its customer base.

It still goes back to the fact that we or anyone watches very few of the channels that any cable system gives you. I pay extra for most of the channels we watch. I buy the college football package, the MLB package and the NHL package. I am willing to pay for them. I would like to see replays of the team I care about in the NFL since where I live they are never on and I cannot have a dish. But TWC won't let me pay for the NFLN -- all I am asking for is the choice.

I'll let your math error slip.

I'll let your english error slip.

I specifically said 4 LIVE GAMES - not pre-recorded.

As I understand the federal law, condo associations are not allowed to forbid satellite dishes -- at least the smaller Dish and DirecTV versions (anything under 36" in diameter).

Few condo associations care to deal with the law, but it exists. Check fcc.org.

They can forbid in common areas, which is why i used that wording specifically. They cannot forbid in private areas.

The 25 million is NBC's high "estimate" of viewers during the hour, how they get it is beyond me. My understanding is the big 4 always give us the high estimate to make it look better then it is. Cable stays true and just gives the average of the time period. But it is true a lot of people switched channels during that hour. Everyone switches during the comercial it is just a matter of who comes back. That is where everthing gets complicated and that is why they have Neilsen during the ratings books. Hope this clarifies Monday's ratings battle. Either way Heroes looks like a winner and will be here for months to come.

Here's where the problem is.

In Radio, you have a Cume Figure, that is equivilant to circulation of a paper. That is used when any person tunes to that station at anytime. However, to actually make it worth anything to the advertiser, you need a rating (which as you can see is also used by Nielsen in the numbers quoted) A rating point is not given to a radio station until someone uses that station for atleast 5 minutes in a 15 minute period.

In Television, the overnights are broken down ratings. They do not produce a Cume Ratings or Circulation rating in their overnight numbers.

Now, this has become somewhat interesting to me as to what NBC is doing here - and I have spent a great deal of time today trying to get to the bottom of it with a member of the MRC accrediation/audit comittee. While you might not know what the MRC is, I assure you Nielsen and NBC - as well as the advertising community knows very well what it is:

http://www.mediaratingcouncil.org/History.htm

Thus far we cannot come up with a way NBC could ever truthfully claim anywere close to 25 Million Viewers in overnight numbers - and I assure you we know the system VERY well.

So, this should be rather interesting - and should again give you insight to why again I say question everything no matter the source - NBC or just someone publishing stuff on the web.

As I understand the federal law, condo associations are not allowed to forbid satellite dishes -- at least the smaller Dish and DirecTV versions (anything under 36" in diameter).

Few condo associations care to deal with the law, but it exists. Check fcc.org.

I'm not a lawyer, but since my dish would have to be mounted on a common area and not to my property, I think they're well within their rights to deny me access.

It's also not something I'm willing to fight that hard over. I'd like to get able to get DirecTV so I could get Sunday Ticket, but I understand the reasons that I can't right now.

they're still looking at the issue and things may change.

We have been round and round on this one in our condo/HOA's. The FCC rule deals with exclusive use areas. An example would be a porch -- I then could put up a dish -- the HOA cannot stop me. However in our building we have no exclusive use areas, anything outside is common -- walls of the building, roof, etc. We do not have porches .Under the FCC rules we cannot have a dish unless our HOA allows it.

The only way I can put up a dish is inside and aim it out the window. There is a special glass I could put in that is supposed to work but the direction I would have to use would make a mess of our TV room so I am stuck with TW.

I cannot put a dish on a post outside since I don't have exclusive use to the ground or the wall I would have to go through to get inside.

It does get tricky but that is the rule the FCC came up with so some of us are not able to have a dish no matter what.

We have been round and round on this one in our condo/HOA's. The FCC rule deals with exclusive use areas. An example would be a porch -- I then could put up a dish -- the HOA cannot stop me. However in our building we have no exclusive use areas, anything outside is common -- walls of the building, roof, etc. We do not have porches .Under the FCC rules we cannot have a dish unless our HOA allows it.

The only way I can put up a dish is inside and aim it out the window. There is a special glass I could put in that is supposed to work but the direction I would have to use would make a mess of our TV room so I am stuck with TW.

I cannot put a dish on a post outside since I don't have exclusive use to the ground or the wall I would have to go through to get inside.

It does get tricky but that is the rule the FCC came up with so some of us are not able to have a dish no matter what.

You are 100% correct.

As an aside and I have wondered about this....Most condos (at least high rise condos) have air exchangers on the roof. Now, considering we are talking of units from lets say the last 40 years that have their own AC units and not one large unit for the entire building (think WTC, Sears Tower or the like), then your air exchanger sits on the roof with all the other units. If your exchanger goes out, they let you replace the air exchanger without any issues. Obviously, there is some variation in brand and size of these units - and they have changed in shape over the years.

What would prevent anyone from putting a brace across the top of their air exchanger and mounting a dish on it?

As nothing else can go on top of the air exchanger - and its already your unit - and its out of sight for the most part - etc etc etc, I wonder if someone just went ahead and did this (again, its your air exchanger) what could be done?

And better yet, slip the A/C man $100 to tell them its a new unit that requires constant monitoring and notifies them in case of parts failure.