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.
Good point, you see I always question that high estimate, and you have given me more insight into it. Thank you. You always have to assume it isn't a lie. But I always wonder about those estimates when the number of average viewers end up being so much lower. (25 mil view - 14.1 avg) I have been a faithful NBC watcher since the 80's and this is something that needs to be solved. There must be some kind of math that they use to get that number. I doubt they would broadcast misinformation over the air, would they? I am not nieve, I know they would but there has to be something out there. Thanks HDTVFanAtic. I have always been into the ratings system and try to get as much info as possible.

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.


Here is what is up at the FTC site now:

(fast national numbers for wednesday, september 27, 2006)
PLEASE DO NOT COPY OR REPRODUCE THIS INFORMATION TO OTHER WEB SITES, FORUMS, NEWSGROUPS, ETC.

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings.aspx?id=wednesday

Here is what is up at the FTC site now:

(fast national numbers for wednesday, september 27, 2006)
PLEASE DO NOT COPY OR REPRODUCE THIS INFORMATION TO OTHER WEB SITES, FORUMS, NEWSGROUPS, ETC.

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings.aspx?id=wednesday
I wasn't going to send anything else but people just keep on items in this place.
That is only for that page. That is the Neilsen page, The network page does not have that warning. Check the other pages the warning is not there. Just the disclaimer.

Even though I'm a Vikings Fan, Buffalo can be forgiven - - -

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060930/1005191.asp

"He wants his NFL

Amherst Councilman Dan Ward sure isn't afraid to champion a popular cause.

On Monday, the recently announced candidate for Erie County executive will introduce a bill that "demands" that Time Warner bring the NFL Network back to its cable package.

The cable provider, in a dispute with the National Football League, dropped the channel when it took over local cable service from Adelphia.

Ward issued his demand "on behalf of the citizens of Amherst, all the residents of Western New York, especially youth, ill, those shut-in, confined and unable to attend Buffalo Bills football games in person."

One minor problem: The NFL Network is not carrying any Bills games this year.

And televising Bills home games is contingent on the games being sold out 72 hours before kickoff, something that has nothing to do with Time Warner or the NFL Network.

But why let that get in the way of a good demand? "


* The Guy's heart is in the right place !

After reading this long article ( http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6376892.html ) about how

"Time Warner Cable Squeezes CW Stations"

- " demanding cash from a number of affiliates of the new CW network, which it partly owns."

- - - -

It appears that TWC may be a tough nut to crack if it's willing to do that to a Network it owns 50% of !

It is just so comical that the NFL and Mark Cuban are trying to relive the 80s.

Yes, the demand of "I want My MTV" got it on many cable systems. Of course, as you had 36 channels then and about about 20 choices from satellite to put on them, times were easier :)

Since then, although MTV has tried it again with VH-1 and M2 - O has tried it - Mark Cuban yells for people here to do it and NFL spends more money that HDNET ever will next year - yet since the early 80s and MTV, not one cable channel has been able to "blackmail" themselves on to a system through angry customers.

It makes good fodder for newspapers and the internet, but has NO effect on getting the channel on.

The only thing it does is wastes your time (as many would say, sort of like my posts as well as many others here).

Fred Dressler, Corp VP of Programming (and negotiations) for TWC, is apparently retiring (see article below).

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6377276.html?display=Search+Results&text=Dressler

With regard to TWC adding the NFL Network (or anything of value/interest for that matter ... since Dressler has presided over TWC's pathetic record of carriage agreements since TV was B&W)- who knows if this is a good or bad thing. They'll probably just promote one of his minnions who will carry on the tradition of screwing the subscribers.

I called TW today about another issue and asked about ESPN2HD, ESPNU and NFLN. I got the usual response about the E's -- we are working on it --. But the NFLN was a new TW lie and he told me it was the truth, said why would he lie to me a valued TW customer! His lie -- NFLN has a ten year contract with some unknown corporate something that has two more years to run and then TW will be able to have NFLN -- at least now we know. Oh wait I think that is the sound of pigs flying over my house

I swear the above is true, I am not making it up!

The FCC dismissed the complaint between Time Warner Cable and NFL Network, citing the parties' effort to reach an earlier agreement concerning their program carriage dispute

Looks like the FCC isn't going to help NFL Network get on the system.

TV Notebook
Dressler's Last Play: NFL Network Talks
By R. Thomas Umstead MultiChannel News 10/9/2006

Fred Dressler may be retiring Jan. 1, but he will strap on his negotiating helmet at least one more time.

NFL Network is hoping to convince the lame duck executive to complete a distribution deal with the company he works for, Time Warner Cable, before the network's package of live Thursday and Saturday night National Football League games launches on Thanksgiving night.

Time Warner Cable executives confirmed talks with the football network, which currently counts 33 million subscribers, about a carriage deal that would include the network's eight live regular-season game telecasts.

NFL Network officials have insisted that the service be offered on an analog basic tier, while Time Warner wants to put the service on its $5-per-month sports tier.

“We would like to reach an agreement with Fred before he leaves,” said NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky. “We think that's a nice feather in his cap after 30 years of [negotiating] and we think that it'll be a nice baton toss to Ms. Witmer and begin a nice, long relationship with Time Warner.”

Dressler seems to have caught the pass. “I told the NFL Network that I was here until the end of the year,” he said. “If they wanted to get a deal done that was enough time.”

The network hopes to put pressure on the operators through a new multimedia ad campaign with DirecTv Inc., which has a long-term carriage deal with the network. The campaign encourages consumers to switch from cable to DirecTV to get the games.

In addition, the network last week launched a Web site (www.iwantmynflnetwork.com) which allows consumers to e-mail their cable networks to demand NFL Network.

Time Warner Cable has its own Web site, www.NFLgetreal.com, which allows consumers to register their vote to place the NFL Network in a sports package.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6378998

I don't know where they are getting the $5/month figure on the sports tier. Its $2.95/month in Dayton and is an incredible value for CSTV and the Fox College Sports Channels.


Edit: The Sports package also includes ESPNNews, the Game Show Network, NBATV, TennisTV, a couple of racing channels, and the Outdoors Network.

We pay $4.50 a month for the same basic package as dc10 described.

unless it is bundled with other stuff then it is $2.98 but you pay a lot to save the 1.50

I don't know where they are getting the $5/month figure on the sports tier. Its $2.95/month in Dayton and is an incredible value for CSTV and the Fox College Sports Channels.


Edit: The Sports package also includes ESPNNews, the Game Show Network, NBATV, TennisTV, a couple of racing channels, and the Outdoors Network.
The TWC digital tiers are $5 here in LA. You get one digital tier free as part of digital cable (which I chose SPORTS specifically for NBATV), the rest are $5 each additional. Our SPORTS tier does not include ESPN News.

Oh...BTW...I'm siding with TWC on this one. Stick this in the SPORTS tier. I have the channel via E* there just isn't much value IMO (other than the live games coming up).

The TWC digital tiers are $5 here in LA. You get one digital tier free as part of digital cable (which I chose SPORTS specifically for NBATV), the rest are $5 each additional. Our SPORTS tier does not include ESPN News.

Oh...BTW...I'm siding with TWC on this one. Stick this in the SPORTS tier. I have the channel via E* there just isn't much value IMO (other than the live games coming up).Our digital tiers here in TW Desert Cities are priced the same as in my former home, Orange County.

I'm with Dressler all the way. The NFL needs to realize that not everyone watches football - and among those that do, not everyone wants to pay for the honor of watching out-of-market games for a few weeks!

Just wait a few years. If the NFL wants to start going down this path, every Sunday will be a PPV event before you know it. This is how it starts.

As a TWC subscriber who couldn't care less about the NFL (I'm a baseball fanatic all the way, but I can't stand football), I don't feel that I should subsidize those who do want to watch these games. Put it in the Sports Tier and let those who want to see it pay for it. Does the NFL think that maybe not enough people would pay for their precious product? Not enough confidence in your fanbase, perhaps?

the NFL wants it in the analog tier so they can claim that it's in every household subscribing to cable. put it in the sports tier and i'm sure most of the fans will subscribe, but their numbers will go way down. add to that the churn rate as all but the most diehard fans drop it during the off-months and it's not looking good for them.

they don't come across too well in this article, either--

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/15664180.htm

....add to that the churn rate as all but the most diehard fans drop it during the off-months and it's not looking good for them.
Great point...I hadn't thought about that.

We could take Turbo Dan's post and substitute shopping networks for NFL, for example and it would be the same thing. I am not saying he is wrong but I personally have no use for the shopping networks, movies on demand, music channels, Fox news, all the religious channels and much of the other stuff we pay for that we don't watch. We really only need about 20 channels, surveys show that is all we use. It is just that the list of 20 is different for many people. Many of you will disagree with the channels I find no use for above and wonder why I pay for ESPN Game Plan, MLB Baseball and NHL Center Ice.
The issue really is choice -- TWC won't give us that choice, they want to make the decisions for us. If I want to have any TV at all where I live I must have TW. I cannot have a dish.

Actually, it's Baseball that needs to be in a Sports Tier based on ratings.

They've been doing the comparison over at http://www.dbsforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=68809

* It's probably not fair that the comparison is between Baseball Playoffs and regular NFL Games. Perhaps the World Series would have made Baseball look better ?

The American Pastime is doing great, maintaining or improving previous high Ratings for Broadcast and Cable. Baseball, on the other hand, is limping along. It makes no sense to bury America's favorite (people vote by watching) Sport by placing some of it in a Sports Tier !

===

Highest number of subscribers to a Sports Package - The NFL beats all others combined.

Most revenue from a Sports Package - The NFL beats all others combined.

Most revenue from Broadcast and/or Cable - The NFL beats all Sports.

Highest Ratings for (Regular and Playoff ) games - The NFL

Highest Ratings for Championship Game (s) - The NFL

Most Valuable Sports League in the World - The NFL

Most talked about Sport on Radio (discussed year around) and TV (only with the NFL Network)- The NFL

I could go on ...


Guess that means they should bury (part of) it in a Sports Tier and make everyone pay extra ? I don't see the logic.

I'm with Dressler all the way. The NFL needs to realize that not everyone watches football - and among those that do, not everyone wants to pay for the honor of watching out-of-market games for a few weeks!

The NFL Fan is a different creature than Fans of other Sports -

Quoting Carl Banks about info from the Apparel Manufacturers in an earlier post in this Thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8321048&highlight=55#post8321048

"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%."

===

Combine that with the limited reach of 'Local' stations carrying the NFL Networks regular season games and there appears to be a real significant unserved market if these games are placed in a Sports Tier. This can not be said of any other games in any other Sport.

The NFL Fan is a different creature than Fans of other Sports -

Quoting Carl Banks about info from the Apparel Manufacturers in an earlier post in this Thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8321048&highlight=55#post8321048

"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%."

===

Combine that with the limited reach of 'Local' stations carrying the NFL Networks regular season games and there appears to be a real significant unserved market if these games are placed in a Sports Tier. This can not be said of any other games in any other Sport.

Regardless, I don't see how this impacts whether to put it on a sports tier. Its 8 games out of market people can't get, one or two of them at most involving their own out of market team. Chances are they haven't been able to watch any out of market games for the entire season. Now the NFL network comes along and give them maybe one game, and these fanatics can't get the sports tier?

The NFL has created the out of market problem by the way it chooses to distribute its games (via CBS and Fox regional coverage). If the NFL were really interested in meeting the demands of its out of market fans it would make Sunday Ticket available to all providers or allow national broadcasts with multiple networks (games at 12:00, 3:30, 7:00 and 10:30 on Fox, CBS, NBC, and ESPN).

The comparison to baseball doesn't make sense, either. Baseball teams are all on RSNs, for the most part. There IS no national coverage of out-of-market baseball except when ESPN picks up a game. In addition, there are 162 games per year in baseball - football doesn't get that many chances to bring in revenue so they need a higher rating per game. Baseball has every night of the week from April through September for EVERY team to make revenue at the stadium and on TV.

Now the NFL network comes along and give them maybe one game, and these fanatics can't get the sports tier?
However, most of the games on NFL Network were national games that were available on FOX, CBS, and ESPN in years past.

If the NFL were really interested in meeting the demands of its out of market fans it would make Sunday Ticket available to all providers or allow national broadcasts with multiple networks (games at 12:00, 3:30, 7:00 and 10:30 on Fox, CBS, NBC, and ESPN).

I'd easily pay $300-$400 a year for Sunday Ticket were it made available to me. The NFL doesn't want my money, though.

I'd easily pay $300-$400 a year for Sunday Ticket were it made available to me. The NFL doesn't want my money, though.


Same here. I'd be willing to pay up to $500 for it.

I don't know where they are getting the $5/month figure on the sports tier. Its $2.95/month in Dayton and is an incredible value for CSTV and the Fox College Sports Channels.


Edit: The Sports package also includes ESPNNews, the Game Show Network, NBATV, TennisTV, a couple of racing channels, and the Outdoors Network.


It costs $5 on my Comcast.

When you guys get to $700 Million, give the NFL a call - I think they'll listen.

The NFL believes they are maximizing revenue the way they are doing it now. That is why they do not care about your money in particular.

The NFL believes they are maximizing revenue the way they are doing it now. That is why they do not care about your money in particular.

Yes, I know, and in their shoes I'd do the same thing.

I didn't say it was wrong that that they don't care about my money, just that they don't.

If it makes you feel any better - I care about your money. :)

We could take Turbo Dan's post and substitute shopping networks for NFL, for example and it would be the same thing.

No, you can't. The shopping channels don't charge a monthly fee per subscriber, which the NFL Network does. In fact, the shopping channels actually pay cable companies a portion of the revenue they make.

The bottom line is this: shopping channels don't increase your monthly cable bill. The NFL Network does. Period.

I love football and as soon as I move into a residence that permits satellite dishes, I'll be getting DirecTV for Sunday Ticket. I hate the NFL, however. No not the games, but the greedy men in suits who have been screwing us for years. The NFL is the reason you can only watch 3 games on Sunday afternoon forcing one of the two channels to show crap for 3 hours. The NFL is the reason you can't watch the end of a really great football game (when the rest wasn't shown in your area) if it will interfere with the opening kickoff of the next game. The NFL is the reason Sunday Ticket is only on frigging satellite. The NFL is the most fan unfriendly of all the leagues but because it's the one I enjoy watching the most, I'm screwed. However, I'm willing to miss the 8 games the NFL Network will be showing if it means Time Warner can stick it to them and keep our cable bill down. Let those who want to see all the Thursday night NFL games pay to watch the NFL network on a digital sports tier.

DirecTV, NFL Network Going Deep
By Mike Reynolds MultiChannel News 10/16/2006

DirecTV and NFL Network are planning a major marketing blitz for Time Warner Cable subscribers.

The direct-broadcast satellite service will team up with the 41 million-subscriber network to run a multimedia, multimillion-dollar ad campaign in four Time Warner and Comcast markets not carrying the National Football League’s cable service.

The NFL Network ad blitz is part of an eight-market DirecTV acquisition campaign launched this past August targeted at siphoning subscribers in systems recently consolidated by Time Warner and Comcast.

DirecTV’s cable-consolidation campaign -- which offers $150 rebates to subscribers ditching cable -- has already yielded double-digit subscriber-increase percentages, according to vice president of acquisition marketing Brad Bentley.

Beginning Thursday, DirecTV and NFL Network will run radio ads and place ad inserts in major newspapers within the Buffalo, N.Y.; Dallas; Cleveland; and Los Angeles markets touting the satellite company’s carriage of the channel, which includes the network’s eight-game Thursday and Saturday package.

Time Warner has yet to reach a carriage deal for NFL Network, saying that it wants to carry the service on a sports tier. NFL Network officials are demanding carriage on highly penetrated analog-basic tiers.

“We’re just letting customers know that they do have a choice and we do carry the NFL Network,” Bentley said. “They’re not at the mercy of the cable company.”

NFL Network’s message will be combined with DirecTV’s overall acquisition campaign that has been running in those markets since August. That campaign also includes the Washington, D.C.; West Palm Beach, Fla.; Colorado Springs, Colo.; and Minneapolis markets.

“We’ve seen a lot of movement and, now, they have added reason to switch because they’re losing channels like NFL Network,” Bentley said. “Historically, these transitions have not gone smoothly and work to our advantage, so we hope to continue to see good growth momentum.”

Bentley would not speculate on whether operators will secure deals for NFL Network’s Thursday/Saturday package before the first game Thanksgiving night.

NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky said the network expects to get good traction from the campaigns. “Ultimately, we prefer to have deals with cable operators, but our obligation is to our fans,” he added.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6381162

I will tell you guys, so far in NYC time warner does not need to get the NFL network at all. We have been getting at least 5 games a week. That is a pleasent surprise. We would only get 4 normally. Jets & Giants game and sun and mon night games. Five games a week is enough for this sport fan. We never get blacked out over here so we always see our home games. I can't see having to pay more on my cable bill to watch another 8 games. Go TWC!

I will tell you guys, so far in NYC time warner does not need to get the NFL network at all. We have been getting at least 5 games a week. That is a pleasent surprise. We would only get 4 normally. Jets & Giants game and sun and mon night games. Five games a week is enough for this sport fan. We never get blacked out over here so we always see our home games. I can't see having to pay more on my cable bill to watch another 8 games. Go TWC!

What about on Thanksgiving night when the rest of the country settles in for the NFL game that will only be shown on the NFL Network? Sounds like you won't care but the rest of us football fans do. And, after that there will be Thurs and Sat games that we won't get to see. Even now, the NFL Network shows replays of the 4 best games from Sunday. Since you can only see 3 Sunday afternoon games in your local market (unless you have DirectTV Sunday ticket), I, for one, would love to see these games that I most likely did not have access to. Just because it's not live and I know the final score doesn't mean I (and millions of others) would not want to watch it. Add to that the other content that the NFL Network produces, and you'd realize (if you are an NFL fan) that we are getting screwed by not having it. One of the biggest misconceptions on this and other forums is that the NFL Network consists of only 8 games--- it's much more. Yes, it appeals most to NFL fans. But, doesn't the Golf Channel appeal most to golf fans? And, the Science Network appeal most to Science nerds? Yet, we have these channels. You guys have to wake up and realize that TWC is using the NFL Network in hopes of sticking it in a sports tier and charging much more than they would pay for it to gauge us. I know, I know ... the mean old NFL wants too much per subscriber. Well, they do because it's popular and in demand. If the product isn't worth it, then why do both satellite providers and almost every cable operator except for TWC-- offer it to their customers?

What about on Thanksgiving night when the rest of the country settles in for the NFL game that will only be shown on the NFL Network? Sounds like you won't care but the rest of us football fans do. And, after that there will be Thurs and Sat games that we won't get to see. Even now, the NFL Network shows replays of the 4 best games from Sunday. Since you can only see 3 Sunday afternoon games in your local market (unless you have DirectTV Sunday ticket), I, for one, would love to see these games that I most likely did not have access to. Just because it's not live and I know the final score doesn't mean I (and millions of others) would not want to watch it. Add to that the other content that the NFL Network produces, and you'd realize (if you are an NFL fan) that we are getting screwed by not having it. One of the biggest misconceptions on this and other forums is that the NFL Network consists of only 8 games--- it's much more. Yes, it appeals most to NFL fans. But, doesn't the Golf Channel appeal most to golf fans? And, the Science Network appeal most to Science nerds? Yet, we have these channels. You guys have to wake up and realize that TWC is using the NFL Network in hopes of sticking it in a sports tier and charging much more than they would pay for it to gauge us. I know, I know ... the mean old NFL wants too much per subscriber. Well, they do because it's popular and in demand. If the product isn't worth it, then why do both satellite providers and almost every cable operator except for TWC-- offer it to their customers?
First of all I am a NFL fan. But they have to realize that people do not want an increase in their bills for only 8 games a season. As you and others have pointed out in this thread. There is other content on this channel(replay games, the draft, training camps)but this not where the channel would get its's main ratings from. These shows are items that would only be watched by a hard core fan. It is the live games that is their selling point. If you watch all the commercials for the channel they emphasize their live coverage with the best technology and announcers. They rarely mention any other show or anything else the channel carries. The NFL has a big fan base but they need to be more realistic. "$100 million for eight games" this is how every other customer of TWC will look at it if their bill goes up $30-$50 to keep this station on basic cable. That is the main issue TWC is trying to avoid by wanting it to be a pay service. People like you and my friend could watch a sports channel all day and be satisfied. But the rest of the TWC and all cable systems customers feel differently.

As for your Thanksgiving comment, we have been "settling" for 2 games for the past 30+ years. The NFL has forced us to see Dallas and Detroit for years. The extra game that we will have to Pay for is during dinner time anyway basically most might miss the game.

One SAT (sunday ticket)got a great deal for their coverage, but they still charge a premium for that coverage. Which is in line with what TWC wants to do. The other one I don't know about their coverage or how much the NFL charged them
TWC isn't the only cable company saying no they are just the one bitching the loudest.

I personally think both companies will come off their high horses and settle before the first game.

"$100 million for eight games" this is how every other customer of TWC will look at it if their bill goes up $30-$50 to keep this station on basic cable.

:confused:

$30-$50 per what? Not monthly, or even annually.

:confused:

$30-$50 per what? Not monthly, or even annually.
$30-50 annually, that is the way it works out for 2-3 mil TWC customers.

Remember people are very sensitive to changes in their bill, so a change of $3 -5 a month and only one new channel. That would create a panic.

$30-50 annually, that is the way it works out for 2-3 mil TWC customers.

Remember people are very sensitive to changes in their bill, so a change of $3 -5 a month and only one new channel. That would create a panic.
From today's Wall Street Journal -

"Stamford, Conn.-based Time Warner Cable has 14.4 million subscribers, including more than 5.4 million digital video customers, and provides Internet access to over 5 million customers through its own cable-based ISP, Road Runner, and through other providers."

nuttyinnyc,

Hate to break it to you, but cable bills have been going up $3-5 a month on a yearly basis and I haven't seen any widespread panic in the streets. What about when TWC has to start paying Fox News Channel $0.75 a month instead of $0.25? Also, there is no way TWC would add any one channel to basic at a cost to them of less then $1 per month then announce they are raising your bill $3 because of it.

I will tell you guys, so far in NYC time warner does not need to get the NFL network at all. We have been getting at least 5 games a week. That is a pleasent surprise. We would only get 4 normally. Jets & Giants game and sun and mon night games. Five games a week is enough for this sport fan. We never get blacked out over here so we always see our home games. I can't see having to pay more on my cable bill to watch another 8 games. Go TWC!

We've always gotten 5 games - there were always three on Sunday afternoon.

There *should* be four. It's silly that only one network gets a doubleheader a week.

nuttyinnyc,

Hate to break it to you, but cable bills have been going up $3-5 a month on a yearly basis and I haven't seen any widespread panic in the streets. What about when TWC has to start paying Fox News Channel $0.75 a month instead of $0.25? Also, there is no way TWC would add any one channel to basic at a cost to them of less then $1 per month then announce they are raising your bill $3 because of it.
Your bill goes up with nothing added. That is just the F@#$ the consumer increase. That is normal, we get that increase on every bill. What isn't normal is when they tell us that they have to add that much to your bill for one channel. That will cause an uproar.

$30-50 annually, that is the way it works out for 2-3 mil TWC customers.

Remember people are very sensitive to changes in their bill, so a change of $3 -5 a month and only one new channel. That would create a panic.

They shouldn't increase our bills at all. TWC already charges more per subscriber than any other MSO-- and provides MUCH LESS programming. TWC posted record profits last year because they continue to charge more for less. By the way, your figures are incredibly wrong. You've fell for the garbage that TWC is spouting.

They shouldn't increase our bills at all. TWC already charges more per subscriber than any other MSO-- and provides MUCH LESS programming. TWC posted record profits last year because they continue to charge more for less. By the way, your figures are incredibly wrong. You've fell for the garbage that TWC is spouting.
I was right about the 2 -3 mil figure but I mistaken that figure for total customers as Gary pointed out they have a total of 14.5 customers. The figure I had was north east customers. That was my fault. I have no problem admitting a mistake.

I am with you they shouldn't charge more. But if you go through this whole thread. That is the issue at hand. You have arguments from all 4 sides. "TWC is right." "NFL is right," "I want more channels for no charge," and the "put it on a sports tier why should I pay for something that I won't watch." These are the main 4 arguments.

Remember it is a business first, so you can't fault them for trying to make a profit. It just seems that they forget that too, when they don't put the money where it counts. customer service and signal strength.

I am curious what channels does TWC not carry that you want? I also feel that they are very comparable from listings I see from other companies, even SAT.

The NFL strong arm tatics have blown up in their face. Cable realized early on that people that would desert cable for 4 NFL games most likely had already gone to D* for ST in the first place.

As the old saying goes, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - is so true here. The NFL should have realized when they gave ST to D* exclusively, they severely limited their ability to negotiate for this network with cable.

I am curious what channels does TWC not carry that you want? I also feel that they are very comparable from listings I see from other companies, even SAT.

I'm a sports nut, so I'd love to see ESPN2HD, ESPNU (SD), and NFL Network (SD/HD). But, I'd also love to see Nat Geo HD, Food Network HD. Basically, I'd like to see them add ANYTHING of value. The only HD channel that has been added in over 2 years is Universal HD. And, apart from 2 weeks of the US Open (tennis) and 4 days of the Masters (golf)-- that channel is absolutely worthless ... the worst HD channel by far (unless you like endless re-runs of Law and Order, Quantam Leap and Medical Investigation). All this while all of the other MSOs steadily add HD channels. Check Comcast, Cox and others. All of them crush TWC. And, the satellite providers (especially Dish) have even more. Isn't it obvious to you that TWC does not care about customer demand for programming? If it isn't, you're fooling yourself.

The NFL strong arm tatics have blown up in their face. Cable realized early on that people that would desert cable for 4 NFL games most likely had already gone to D* for ST in the first place.

As the old saying goes, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - is so true here. The NFL should have realized when they gave ST to D* exclusively, they severely limited their ability to negotiate for this network with cable.

Then why has over 75 cable companies picked up the NFL Network ... including all of the top 5 except for TWC?

Then why has over 75 cable companies picked up the NFL Network ... including all of the top 5 except for TWC?

Cablevision doesn't have it yet, which peeves me.

Then why has over 75 cable companies picked up the NFL Network ... including all of the top 5 except for TWC?

The top 5 except TWC?

Interesting....better check those numbers.

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/7535640

http://www.tvpredictions.com/nflhd101806.htm

The top 5 except TWC?

Interesting....better check those numbers.

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/7535640

OK. Which company in the top 5 MSOs does not have NFL Network? I think Cablevision dropped it, so if they are in the top 5-- I misspoke.

OK. Which company in the top 5 MSOs does not have NFL Network? I think Cablevision dropped it, so if they are in the top 5-- I misspoke.


http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=73


http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=72


So how many of the Top 5 have it now? In fact, why don't list the Top 10 largest MSOs that have it?

And btw, Comcast only agreed to take it for 1 year in the basic tier.

You seem to count as well as swanni.

The NFL strong arm tatics have blown up in their face. Cable realized early on that people that would desert cable for 4 NFL games most likely had already gone to D* for ST in the first place.

As the old saying goes, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - is so true here. The NFL should have realized when they gave ST to D* exclusively, they severely limited their ability to negotiate for this network with cable.
I think you said it the best out of everyone here, everyone that would or could switch to direct TV ST already did. The NFL gave exclusive rights to one company and now they will suffer for it(as much as a big business can suffer, it isn't like the will close up shop because of this). If you guys look at the NFL article it points out 1 major fact less than 40% of the nation will be getting NFL network. 44,568,420 hoseholds out of the Neilsen estimate of 110,000,000 total hoseholds. TWC and Cablevision are actually working together on this one which is bad for the NFL. These are rival networks that have kept channels off the year for less reason then this. Both of them are in the top six for customers(you were off by 1 Toad)

http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=73


http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=72


So how many of the Top 5 have it now? In fact, why don't list the Top 10 largest MSOs that have it?

And btw, Comcast only agreed to take it for 1 year in the basic tier.

You seem to count as well as swanni.

No Comcast is just keeping it in Digital Plus.

THey MAY make it Sports Tier only but I would doubt it.

I'm a sports nut, so I'd love to see ESPN2HD, ESPNU (SD), and NFL Network (SD/HD). But, I'd also love to see Nat Geo HD, Food Network HD. Basically, I'd like to see them add ANYTHING of value. The only HD channel that has been added in over 2 years is Universal HD. And, apart from 2 weeks of the US Open (tennis) and 4 days of the Masters (golf)-- that channel is absolutely worthless ... the worst HD channel by far (unless you like endless re-runs of Law and Order, Quantam Leap and Medical Investigation). All this while all of the other MSOs steadily add HD channels. Check Comcast, Cox and others. All of them crush TWC. And, the satellite providers (especially Dish) have even more. Isn't it obvious to you that TWC does not care about customer demand for programming? If it isn't, you're fooling yourself.
I never said time warner doesn't care about their subscribers. That NEVER came out of my fingers!
As for the HD selection TWC is almost on par with the other networks. SAT does have the best lineup with all three companies. When you look at cable against cable the only difference I see is premium channels. TWC is very short when it comes to their premium list. But again, that just means more money.
I said this before and I will say it again. People keep pointing out what they don't get that is broadcast already. Instead of pointing to the companies that don't give it. The Food network is nice so is A&EHD and Nat Geo is would be good just like DiscoveryHD is a hit with all of us HD owners. But that is just us settling again, we need to get other companies involved(USA, TBS, SciFi, FX & any remaining sport channels). These are the highest rated channels. Once we get them invovled HD would be more mainstream then the cable companies would have no choice but to add more channels. That is when TWC would take notice.
Most of these cable companies right now are still working to get DTV on line and perfect the SD. HD isn't a priority for (as I once read) 5% of the country.

http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=73


http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=72


So how many of the Top 5 have it now? In fact, why don't list the Top 10 largest MSOs that have it?

And btw, Comcast only agreed to take it for 1 year in the basic tier.

You seem to count as well as swanni.

NFL Network:
1. Comcast- YES
2. TWC- NO
3. Charter- YES
4. Cox- YES

(was #5) Adelphia- no longer exists, absorbed by TWC

5. Cablevision- used to have it but I understand they no longer do
6. Bright House- operated by TWC, so not surprisingly they don't have it
7. MediaCom - ?
8. Insight- YES

Swanni? Lame.

I never said time warner doesn't care about their subscribers. That NEVER came out of my fingers!

I did, and judging by this and other forums- millions agree.

I did, and judging by this and other forums- millions agree.
but remember the same thing gets said about all the companies(SAT & Cable). Everyone on these forums b@#%$ about their comapnies. Just to move on and B@#$% some more. Soon we see the I hate FIOS threads.

I think Cablevision dropped it, so if they are in the top 5-- I misspoke.

Cablevision, my provider, never had NFL network. Last time I checked they were #8.

NFL Network:
1. Comcast- YES
2. TWC- NO
3. Charter- YES
4. Cox- YES

(was #5) Adelphia- no longer exists, absorbed by TWC

5. Cablevision- used to have it but I understand they no longer do
6. Bright House- operated by TWC, so not surprisingly they don't have it
7. MediaCom - ?
8. Insight- YES

Swanni? Lame.


Cox = No....you can't even get that right when I give you the link - so the true answer is:

1) Yes, for 1 year
2) No
3) Yes
4) No
5) No


So only 2 of the Top 5 have it....and the #1 is on strange terms.....

5) No
6) No
7) No
8) Yes
9) No
10) No


So again, that's 2 in Top 5 and 3 in Top 10 so how do you even get close to your statement:

Then why has over 75 cable companies picked up the NFL Network ... including all of the top 5 except for TWC?


And even if you take out Adelphia because of their sale, then no other MSO below the Top 10 even has close to 400,000 subscribers - so the 75 cable companies are so small it pathetic.

The big boys hung tough because of the simple reasons that have been stated.

I did, and judging by this and other forums- millions agree.

WOW! You are like Swammi with numbers. Why don't you check how members AVS Forum has?

Cox = No....you can't even get that right when I give you the link

WRONG. Apr. '05: Sign affiliation agreement with Cox Communications.

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/fastfacts
http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/timeline

So again, that's 2 in Top 5 and 3 in Top 10 so how do you even get close to your statement.

The big boys hung tough because of the simple reasons that have been stated.

Cox DOES have the NFL Network. I don't give a crap what your link says. I've seen it for myself. Try google. "Big boys hung tough"-- hmmm, Comcast is the biggest of the boys and they have the NFL Network. And, I believe I mentioned that I misspoke about CableVision. They had the NFL Network and recently did not renew. So, I stand corrected- 3 out of the top 5 have the NFL Network (used to be 4). And, if it wasn't for TWC gobbling up Adelphia and yanking NFL Network from those subs-- it WOULD be 4 out of 5. You might want to revise your disclaimer ("I state my opinion as opinion and facts as facts.").

And, I believe I mentioned that I misspoke about CableVision. They had the NFL Network and recently did not renew.

Once again, Cablevision has never carried the NFL Network.

Once again, Cablevision has never carried the NFL Network.

Must have been VOOM (now defunct?) and it's relationship with Cablevision:

http://www.cablevision.com/index.jhtml?id=2003_10_15

In any case, Cablevision was not in the top 5 anyway until TWC absorbed Adelphia. From what I'm reading, TWC is seriously going after buying Cablevision so if that happens it'll eliminate them from this conversation.

Yes, VOOM carried the NFL Network. VOOM was a nationwide satellite service that was owned by Cablevision. Ironically, VOOM carried a few channels that Cablevision didn't, and still doesn't, carry.

While TWC has always coveted Cablevision, they are no where near buying it. The Dolan's are trying to take CV private, they are not interested in selling at this time.

Yes, VOOM carried the NFL Network. VOOM was a nationwide satellite service that was owned by Cablevision. Ironically, VOOM carried a few channels that Cablevision didn't, and still doesn't, carry.

While TWC has always coveted Cablevision, they are no where near buying it. The Dolan's are trying to take CV private, they are not interested in selling at this time.

Smart on the Dolans part. And a good thing for Cablevision subs.

I have Charter and the NFLN is not on any tier. I think that Charter only carries NFL Network on a very limited number of its systems.

I have Charter and the NFLN is not on any tier. I think that Charter only carries NFL Network on a very limited number of its systems.

As is the case with some cable systems (ex. some TWC local systems do not carry Universal HD even though there is a national carriage agreement), it sounds like the local Charter office has decided not to carry it for whatever reason. Charter does have a national agreement with the NFLN though.

Toad trust us NYers, Cablevision will NOT sell to TWC. That is the Dolan's cash cow. Remember they own the Knicks and Rangers also. The way they run those teams over here they are sure to lose money soon.

Toad trust us NYers, Cablevision will NOT sell to TWC. That is the Dolan's cash cow. Remember they own the Knicks and Rangers also. The way they run those teams over here they are sure to lose money soon.

?

Those teams will never, ever, ever lose money, regardless of their performance on the court/ice.

The amount of corporate support for seats and boxes at MSG will keep them profitable forever.

Very misleading. One page earlier says 44 mil hoseholds and this one says 70 mil. It is closer to maybe 50 mil with Cox added.
http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/7535640.
http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/fastfacts
Both story are from the NFL didn't Fanatic make it up.

Then when they are comparing themselves to ESPN and MTV, even TBS startup numbers that is the most misleading stat of them all, Cable was brand new when ESPN and MTV launched if it was in 10% of households back then that was a lot. The total TV hoseholds back then was probably 80 milllion. Comparing viewers from 1980 to today is unrealistic. TBS might be a better comparison because it was launched in the late 80's when more people were receiving cable. But the Golf channel is the best comparison because it is more recent.
I can't fault them for bragging because they have done a good job expanding in 2 years but don't give conflicting information. State facts! 45 mil is very good for a start-up. Do really think MTV would have not top that back then if Cable was widely available like it is now. SAT back then was a 10 ft dish in your back yard if even availible. I think that was popular by the fith year(1984) So that would eliminate almost 27.6 mil of the bragging rights. If you look at cable systems alone.

?

Those teams will never, ever, ever lose money, regardless of their performance on the court/ice.

The amount of corporate support for seats and boxes at MSG will keep them profitable forever.
Not real money, silly! Only the on paper money when they get the bills for putting those over paid players on the court and ice, Luxary tax, and no more sell outs. They do make a lot of money on the merchandise end, food and TV rights. Which doesn't count towards the teams money.
Just like the yankees were in the red for a franchise this year. But they make millions from other sources.
So they will technicaslly lose money, but for them it is worth it in the long run.

Very misleading. One page earlier says 44 mil hoseholds and this one says 70 mil. It is closer to maybe 50 mil with Cox added.
http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/7535640.
http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/fastfacts
Both story are from the NFL didn't Fanatic make it up.

Whatever. The point was that Cox does have the NFL Network. Go to any Cox site or other site. Just pointing out that HDTVFanAttic ("Cox = No....you can't even get that right when I give you the link") was wrong when he/she ripped me about who does and does not have the NFLN.

Not real money, silly! Only the on paper money when they get the bills for putting those over paid players on the court and ice, Luxary tax, and no more sell outs. They do make a lot of money on the merchandise end, food and TV rights. Which doesn't count towards the teams money.
Just like the yankees were in the red for a franchise this year. But they make millions from other sources.
So they will technicaslly lose money, but for them it is worth it in the long run.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, so I'll just smile and nod.

me too. :) :rolleyes:
But you didn't give me the smile, BOO HOO! :(

The point is that they are losing money on putting these teams on the Court or ICE like I said because of their lack of sellouts and high payrolls. So I wouldn't be surprised if they did sell like I said earlier. But they do make money on other capacities of the games.

The point is that they are losing money on putting these teams on the Court or ICE like I said because of their lack of sellouts and high payrolls. So I wouldn't be surprised if they did sell like I said earlier. But they do make money on other capacities of the games.

Profit = Revenue - Cost

They make more in revenue than it costs to run the team. A lot more.

That's all there is to it.

Toad trust us NYers, Cablevision will NOT sell to TWC. That is the Dolan's cash cow. Remember they own the Knicks and Rangers also. The way they run those teams over here they are sure to lose money soon.

May not be as far-fetched as you think. Check out this from today's USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2006-10-18-time-warner-cable_x.htm

"This gives him a tool to consolidate," says Christopher Dixon, GGCP managing director of media investments.

One potential candidate could be Cablevision Systems, whose 3.1 million subscribers surround Time Warner's New York City systems. Cablevision just took the first steps to go private.

May not be as far-fetched as you think. Check out this from today's USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2006-10-18-time-warner-cable_x.htm

"This gives him a tool to consolidate," says Christopher Dixon, GGCP managing director of media investments.

One potential candidate could be Cablevision Systems, whose 3.1 million subscribers surround Time Warner's New York City systems. Cablevision just took the first steps to go private.
Why would cablevision go public then sell? That doesn't make good business sense. If they go publis they should wait a year or 2 for the stock to develop before selling that would maximize their profit.
By that article it would make sense to try to take them over because then they hold a monopoly of the cable service in NYC, Nassau and Suffolk counties. There is RCN in NY also but they really are a non factor.

You really don't know how these companies work, especially sports teams. They divide up every aspect of a team to show loss or profit. It isn't as easy as the equation above. But this isn't a business 101 fourm so I can't teach you now.

Why would cablevision go public then sell? That doesn't make good business sense. If they go publis they should wait a year or 2 for the stock to develop before selling that would maximize their profit.
By that article it would make sense to try to take them over because then they hold a monopoly of the cable service in NYC, Nassau and Suffolk counties. There is RCN in NY also but they really are a non factor.

Read it again- Time Warner Cable is going public (not Cablevision). Cablevision plans to go private, which will make them a prime target for acquisition.

You really don't know how these companies work, especially sports teams. They divide up every aspect of a team to show loss or profit. It isn't as easy as the equation above. But this isn't a business 101 fourm so I can't teach you now.

I still have no idea what point you're trying to make, but rest assured there's nothing you can teach me :)

Whatever. The point was that Cox does have the NFL Network. Go to any Cox site or other site. Just pointing out that HDTVFanAttic ("Cox = No....you can't even get that right when I give you the link") was wrong when he/she ripped me about who does and does not have the NFLN.

You might also want to search on AVS on the Cox HD thread - because they did not put it on their entire system. Only a few markets - which is why Cox cannot be counted. Cox can put them on if they so choose in a market - but thus far they seem to have chosen not to in most markets - and where they have - it appears to be in a digital tier - surprise, surprise. Not exactly what the NFL wants you to know ;)


I am also waiting for you to show us your reference for the millions with a s AVS Members posting about how bad TWC is.

You might also want to search on AVS on the Cox HD thread - because they did not put it on their entire system. Only a few markets - which is why Cox cannot be counted. Cox can put them on if they so choose in a market - but thus far they seem to have chosen not to in most markets - and where they have - it appears to be in a digital tier - surprise, surprise. Not exactly what the NFL wants you to know ;)


I am also waiting for you to show us your reference for the millions with a s AVS Members posting about how bad TWC is.

I dont know about millions but, count me as 1. Their inability to add more HD channels, inability to hammer out a contract with SBG(local FOX affiliate) and NFLN drove me to switch to Knology.

toadfannc, the only way Cablevision will be sold after going private is if the Dolans pull a Adelphia on CV, i.e., they bankrupt the company. NO WAY the Dolans will sell CV on regular circunstances.

The reason they want it private is because they no longer wants to be subject to Wall St. make-or-miss quarter numbers and all rules and regulations, SOX, etc, that a private company MUST follow. Trust me, there are many companies that feel the same way, some are just TOO big to become private but, as one can notice with all leveraged buyouts going on, many are going private.

You might also want to search on AVS on the Cox HD thread - because they did not put it on their entire system. Only a few markets - which is why Cox cannot be counted. Cox can put them on if they so choose in a market - but thus far they seem to have chosen not to in most markets - and where they have - it appears to be in a digital tier - surprise, surprise. Not exactly what the NFL wants you to know ;)


I am also waiting for you to show us your reference for the millions with a s AVS Members posting about how bad TWC is.

As you say in your disclaimer ... that is my opinion. I did say "judging by this and OTHER forums ...". Maybe it's millions, maybe thousands, maybe it's just me. At least, that seems to be what you think.

I dont know about millions but, count me as 1. Their inability to add more HD channels, inability to hammer out a contract with SBG(local FOX affiliate) and NFLN drove me to switch to Knology.

There are lots (is that good enough for you, HDTVFanAttic?) more like you, my friend. But, don't tell that to TWC sycophants like our friend on this forum.

Only a few markets - which is why Cox cannot be counted.

Comcast only agreed to take it for 1 year in the basic tier.

... so the 75 cable companies are so small it pathetic.

The context of the discussion was which MSOs have carriage agreements with the NFL Network, and how many cable providers currently carry the channel. Not, how many markets a cable provider chooses to carry a particular channel (Cox). Or, how long an agreement is for (Comcast), or how many homes a carrier services (the smaller cable providers). And, definitely not your interpretation of what "counts" as a carriage agreement.

TWC must have a deal with CinemaxHD - considering they are on a TWC system in Texas (Rio Grande Valley or San Antonio, iirc).

However, does that mean that 11 Million TWC customers have access to CinemaxHD? Nope.

Thus to say that 11 Million have access to it because they have an agreement is laughable.

It only matters where its carried.

However, does that mean that 20 Million TWC customers have access to CinemaxHD? Nope.


Kind of strange since TWC owns Cinemax.

Kind of strange since TWC owns Cinemax.
I know, how rude is that. I am in "Media capital of the world" and we don't get the most HD channels especially ones they own.

How many of you are getting frustrated by the marketing emails from your local TWC affiliate touting their HDTV Football coverage? Here in San Antonio, we don't get to see the majority of the Cowboys & NFC games in HD because of the dispute with Sinclair who owns the local Fox & CW affiliates. Here's the note I sent back to our local office and cc'd our buddy Fred :)

When you send me emails headlining your NFL HD coverage, it only makes me think more about what you do not have for the NFL in San Antonio. The Cowboys play the majority of their games on Fox and are not carried in HD by TWC due to the eternal ongoing negotiations with Sinclair Broadcasting (same thing for the Spurs on the WB/CW).

The above doesn't even cover the lack of the NFL channel available on a sports only tier as Cox was able to make the NFL accept. If the biggest cable provider in the country can make the NFL cave, why can't TWC? You should be able to get the same deal as Cox....

How many of you are getting frustrated by the marketing emails from your local TWC affiliate touting their HDTV Football coverage? Here in San Antonio, we don't get to see the majority of the Cowboys & NFC games in HD because of the dispute with Sinclair who owns the local Fox & CW affiliates. Here's the note I sent back to our local office and cc'd our buddy Fred :)

When you send me emails headlining your NFL HD coverage, it only makes me think more about what you do not have for the NFL in San Antonio. The Cowboys play the majority of their games on Fox and are not carried in HD by TWC due to the eternal ongoing negotiations with Sinclair Broadcasting (same thing for the Spurs on the WB/CW).

The above doesn't even cover the lack of the NFL channel available on a sports only tier as Cox was able to make the NFL accept. If the biggest cable provider in the country can make the NFL cave, why can't TWC? You should be able to get the same deal as Cox....
Hey dude, I am confused. Why is a dispute effecting which games you see in HD? The only channel program you would not be receiving is the NFL newtwork. As you say Dallas is an NFC team so the majority of their games will be on FOX. They show most of their games in HD, 90% of them. Being that you are in Texas your regional game would be Dallas. Hence my confussion. Unless your Dallas conterparts are not selling out which I doubt, that would lead to a black out for the state. You shouldn't be missing any Dallas HD games unless they aren't broadcast in HD. It seems to me that there is more involved. Is there some of the story ghat you didn't write about, Let me know! It just doesn't make sense that a cable company can stop regular free network programing because of a seperate dispute. Just curious dude.

Seperate note, If you really aren't getting those sundau games it must have killed you to finally get to see them in HD monday and watch that horrible game!

Hey dude, I am confused. Why is a dispute effecting which games you see in HD? The only channel program you would not be receiving is the NFL newtwork. As you say Dallas is an NFC team so the majority of their games will be on FOX. They show most of their games in HD, 90% of them. Being that you are in Texas your regional game would be Dallas. Hence my confussion. Unless your Dallas conterparts are not selling out which I doubt, that would lead to a black out for the state. You shouldn't be missing any Dallas HD games unless they aren't broadcast in HD. It seems to me that there is more involved. Is there some of the story ghat you didn't write about, Let me know! It just doesn't make sense that a cable company can stop regular free network programing because of a seperate dispute. Just curious dude.

Seperate note, If you really aren't getting those sundau games it must have killed you to finally get to see them in HD monday and watch that horrible game!

TWC doesn't have a carriage agreement with Sinclair Broadcasting Group. SBG owns his (and my) local FOX station. Therefore, he doesn't get to see the HD broadcast of his local Cowboys. Or in my case, the Panthers

I was able to get around this by dumping TWC and subbing with Knology.

I'm actually more of an NFC football fan than a Cowboys fan but I watch their local games since I now live in their broadcast area.

The problem is that Sinclair Broadcasting (http://www.sbgi.net/), who owns the local San Antonio FOX & CW affiliates, refuses to let TWC carry their signal in HD with paying them more money and TWC won't budge. That impacts San Antonio twice as bad due to no NFC football (Cowboys) and local NBA (Spurs).

As usual, Joe Consumer is caught in the middle :mad:

I'm actually more of an NFC football fan than a Cowboys fan but I watch their local games since I now live in their broadcast area.

The problem is that Sinclair Broadcasting (http://www.sbgi.net/), who owns the local San Antonio FOX & CW affiliates, refuses to let TWC carry their signal in HD with paying them more money and TWC won't budge. That impacts San Antonio twice as bad due to no NFC football (Cowboys) and local NBA (Spurs).

As usual, Joe Consumer is caught in the middle :mad:
Really, that is horrible! But you still get the SD feed. At least you get a game to watch. you are right Joe consummer pays again. We have all this technology but it is all for nothing if you lose 2 of the prime time networks with HD feeds. Sure no one really watches the CW, but it is still an HD channel for it's prime time network. Losing Fox HD is big. Just look at their HD programs you guys missed or will miss in HD 24, House, American Idol, Standoff, & Prision Break. Hopefully for you the fix it before the Playoff and superbowl because I think it is on Fox this year. Sorry to hear about this dude.

Really, that is horrible! But you still get the SD feed. At least you get a game to watch ...
Be thankful you're not in a Mediacom area. Right now Sinclair is playing hardball with them on the SD (analog) feed, as well.

Really, that is horrible! But you still get the SD feed. At least you get a game to watch. you are right Joe consummer pays again. We have all this technology but it is all for nothing if you lose 2 of the prime time networks with HD feeds. Sure no one really watches the CW, but it is still an HD channel for it's prime time network. Losing Fox HD is big. Just look at their HD programs you guys missed or will miss in HD 24, House, American Idol, Standoff, & Prision Break. Hopefully for you the fix it before the Playoff and superbowl because I think it is on Fox this year. Sorry to hear about this dude.

Well for San Antonio, the CW is huge because they have the rights to the Spurs games. Agreed that Fox is bigger though because I miss out on lots of events in HD. The only chance I have is a set top antenna that will get Fox OTA if the weather is cooperating.

Wow, it seems like people are quickly forgetting it was not all that long ago that very few of us had all 4 major networks in HD by any means.

Wow, it seems like people are quickly forgetting it was not all that long ago that very few of us had all 4 major networks in HD by any means.

And, we used to have to climb on the roof and move around our antennas for 3 channels. What's your point?

We've all spent a ton of money on HDTV's. Is it too much to ask of TWC to add some HD channels? 1 crappy channel (Universal HD) in 3 years is not my idea of responding to customer demand.

TW cares only about its bottom line not its customers always has always will. If they cared about their customers they would offer me the products I want and am willing to pay for, not what they want to give me. I buy several of their niche products now but still cannot get all that I would like. My choice is to move or wait for FIOS. More HD would be a start but that might cost money!!

And, we used to have to climb on the roof and move around our antennas for 3 channels. What's your point?

We've all spent a ton of money on HDTV's. Is it too much to ask of TWC to add some HD channels? 1 crappy channel (Universal HD) in 3 years is not my idea of responding to customer demand.

Comcast Boston has added 9 in a little more then 2 years. :)

We have had HD feeds of the major broadcast networks pretty much since 2004.

Comcast Boston has added 9 in a little more then 2 years. :)

We have had HD feeds of the major broadcast networks pretty much since 2004.

Hey, TWC apologists- where are you? Are we supposed to believe that TWC's supposed technical superiority (what many TWC honks on this and other forums have said) is the reason why they are not keeping up with the other cable company HD offerings? All the while, our cable bills keep going up, with no channel additions. The competitions rates stay the same while they add and add (ex. Comcast)-- including many who have added the NFL Network. Hmm ...

This story appeared in my local newspaper today. Not really shocking; just stating the obvious, that TWC will almost certainly not be carrying the NFL Network this year:

No settlement in sight between Time Warner and NFL Network (http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029/SPORTS04/610290339/1002)

This story appeared in my local newspaper today. Not really shocking; just stating the obvious, that TWC will almost certainly not be carrying the NFL Network this year:

No settlement in sight between Time Warner and NFL Network (http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029/SPORTS04/610290339/1002)


$137 Million from TWC / 11Million Customers = $12.50 each with no mark up for profit. Probably $2.00 each per month after mark up.


FU NFL - GO TWC!!!!!!!!!!!

This story appeared in my local newspaper today. Not really shocking; just stating the obvious, that TWC will almost certainly not be carrying the NFL Network this year:

No settlement in sight between Time Warner and NFL Network (http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029/SPORTS04/610290339/1002)

It just doesn't make any sense that Cox can get the NFL to agree to have the NFL Network carried on a sports tier and TWC cannot do the same.

Hey, TWC apologists- where are you? Are we supposed to believe that TWC's supposed technical superiority (what many TWC honks on this and other forums have said) is the reason why they are not keeping up with the other cable company HD offerings? All the while, our cable bills keep going up, with no channel additions. The competitions rates stay the same while they add and add (ex. Comcast)-- including many who have added the NFL Network. Hmm ...

If you'd take the time to read, you'd know that TWC is aggressively tackling several technology initiatives that will roll out over the next couple of years. At this point, TWC in your area hasn't compromised HD quality just to add a couple of channels. I for one would rather wait for more channels than to have the ones I currently received mucked up just to get a couple of sports channels that are 90% SD content.

If you'd just rather complain, please visit a new thread, or better yet, just start one of your own.

It just doesn't make any sense that Cox can get the NFL to agree to have the NFL Network carried on a sports tier and TWC cannot do the same.
15 mil to 5 mil subscribers that is the difference harley,
That is probably one of TWC biggest problems. How can you offer it as a tier for one and not the other? That isn't fair. The NFL is basically saying screw the consumer as long as my network is being broadcast to the maximum # of consumers as available. The NFL wants to add those 15 mil subscribers to their total so they get better advertising rates. Putting it on a tier would greatly lower the numbers.
Don't get me wrong TWC isn't innocent in all of this. But the NFL, from what I have read hasn't budged on their price let alone the spots tier option.

15 mil to 5 mil subscribers that is the difference harley,
That is probably one of TWC biggest problems. How can you offer it as a tier for one and not the other? That isn't fair. The NFL is basically saying screw the consumer as long as my network is being broadcast to the maximum # of consumers as available. The NFL wants to add those 15 mil subscribers to their total so they get better advertising rates. Putting it on a tier would greatly lower the numbers.
Don't get me wrong TWC isn't innocent in all of this. But the NFL, from what I have read hasn't budged on their price let alone the spots tier option.

Maybe its due to early adoption, or just that Knology is small potatoes but, its not on a sports tier here. However, I wouldn't be surprised if come contract renewal time that it is placed on a sports tier or removed from Knologys system altogether.

Why this is even in the HD section on AVS is questionable to begin with as most cable systems with signed agreements with the NFL have NOT given them a fulltime HD Channel - only a fulltime SD Channel - basic or sports tier.

Why this is even in the HD section on AVS is questionable to begin with as most cable systems with signed agreements with the NFL have NOT given them a fulltime HD Channel - only a fulltime SD Channel - basic or sports tier.
that is a good point, what good is the channel if and when we get it it just happened to be a SD channel. What good is that? Most of my SD sports look horrible.
Unrelated but a true HD SD question:
CBS game yesterday of Jets vs Browns looked surprisingly good. It was the first time since week one that the Jets weren't in HD. Does anyone know if it was enhanced def? Even it was the regular, the SD feed looked good also.

If you'd take the time to read, you'd know that TWC is aggressively tackling several technology initiatives that will roll out over the next couple of years. At this point, TWC in your area hasn't compromised HD quality just to add a couple of channels. I for one would rather wait for more channels than to have the ones I currently received mucked up just to get a couple of sports channels that are 90% SD content.

If you'd just rather complain, please visit a new thread, or better yet, just start one of your own.

Boy, I'm shocked that you chimed in, Mr. Dressler. That lame excuse was being jammed down our throats 2 years ago. While TWC is "agressively tackling ..." bla, bla, bla ... Comcast has added 9 HD channels. If you'd take time to read, you'd see that it's not just me complaining.

Boy, I'm shocked that you chimed in, Mr. Dressler. That lame excuse was being jammed down our throats 2 years ago. While TWC is "agressively tackling ..." bla, bla, bla ... Comcast has added 9 HD channels. If you'd take time to read, you'd see that it's not just me complaining.

You're never going to be happy with Time Warner. We all know that. You can't get satellite where you live. We know that too. Is there anything else that you haven't told us 196 times already that you'd like to tell us? If not, pleez.......

You're never going to be happy with Time Warner. We all know that. You can't get satellite where you live. We know that too. Is there anything else that you haven't told us 196 times already that you'd like to tell us? If not, pleez.......

If a forum like this is not at least partially meant to voice frustrations, then what good is it? Good grief-- we can't make our opinions known to TWC. We all know they just ignore it. I know I'm not objective about this. I'm frustrated with TWC. But, the butt kissing that a select few here do to apologize for TWC's incredibly poor track record for programming additions-- is disgusting. You've suggested that I start another thread ... well, the same can be said of you. Here's a working title-- "Time Warner Cable is great-- no matter what all of you think".

If a forum like this is not at least partially meant to voice frustrations, then what good is it? Good grief-- we can't make our opinions known to TWC. We all know they just ignore it. I know I'm not objective about this. I'm frustrated with TWC. But, the butt kissing that a select few here do to apologize for TWC's incredibly poor track record for programming additions-- is disgusting. You've suggested that I start another thread ... well, the same can be said of you. Here's a working title-- "Time Warner Cable is great-- no matter what all of you think".

I vent as much as anybody, well almost. I try to keep somewhat of a balance between circulating useful information, offering help where I can, asking intellegent questions, and pointing fingers where they need to be pointed. But your posts are all the same, and non productive.

I wish too that TWC had more HD. I wish there was more HD to be had. But you fail to realize that fewer than 10% of TWC's subscribers take HD service at this point. That is pretty much par throughout the cable/sat subscriber universe. There are only a handful of HD channels available, and they are either sparsley programmed (ESPN2) in HD, or recycle the same content over and over and over.

HD is still in it's infancy. The next couple of years the landscape will change dramatically. But you just need to have a little patience.

toadfannc,

Here's a thread you might want to follow.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=733414

I vent as much as anybody, well almost. I try to keep somewhat of a balance between circulating useful information, offering help where I can, asking intellegent questions, and pointing fingers where they need to be pointed. But your posts are all the same, and non productive.

I wish too that TWC had more HD. I wish there was more HD to be had. But you fail to realize that fewer than 10% of TWC's subscribers take HD service at this point. That is pretty much par throughout the cable/sat subscriber universe. There are only a handful of HD channels available, and they are either sparsley programmed (ESPN2) in HD, or recycle the same content over and over and over.

HD is still in it's infancy. The next couple of years the landscape will change dramatically. But you just need to have a little patience.

You know, I can appreciate that. I know I'm impatient. But, I've had an HDTV for 3 years and my cable company has not added any HD content. All the while, other cable companies and definitely the sat companies are constantly adding. I agree-- I vent ... a lot. But, it's really pretty common throughout these forums. People are very frustrated and patience is running pretty thin. You're right, though. I'll keep my frustrations to myself from now on.

You know, I can appreciate that. I know I'm impatient. But, I've had an HDTV for 3 years and my cable company has not added any HD content. All the while, other cable companies and definitely the sat companies are constantly adding. I agree-- I vent ... a lot. But, it's really pretty common throughout these forums. People are very frustrated and patience is running pretty thin. You're right, though. I'll keep my frustrations to myself from now on.
Toad here is a question for you, Not that TWC would give us a better PQ but considering how everyone says HD is great but it can be better. Wouldn't you want your provider to take it's time and get it right instead of rushing to give a sub par PQ?
Also don't you think it should be more of a priority for TWC and others to fix their overall signal(mainly SD ) rather then overload their signal so their is no room for improvement?

I do understand why you would be impatient. You have had an HDTV for 3 years and want more, everyone does. One spends X-amount on a HDTV and only have 10-15 channels one can enjoy the HD PQ is frustrating. It is like living in the 50's or 60's again where you paid so much for color and only had 3 choices. But more doesn't mean quality. Take a stroll through any providers thread and they are filled with hate mail. But like Posg said. 10% have HD let alone people who have HDTV's and don't subscribe to their HD tier. I am guilty of that one.

Thanx for that thread POSG, will it make a difference. Maybe not, but there is close to 300,000 members here at AVS if 25% are TWC customers that is 75,000 that could say something productive. They will take some notice after that.

Toad here is a question for you, Not that TWC would give us a better PQ but considering how everyone says HD is great but it can be better. Wouldn't you want your provider to take it's time and get it right instead of rushing to give a sub par PQ?
Also don't you think it should be more of a priority for TWC and others to fix their overall signal(mainly SD ) rather then overload their signal so their is no room for improvement?

I do understand why you would be impatient. You have had an HDTV for 3 years and want more, everyone does. One spends X-amount on a HDTV and only have 10-15 channels one can enjoy the HD PQ is frustrating. It is like living in the 50's or 60's again where you paid so much for color and only had 3 choices. But more doesn't mean quality. Take a stroll through any providers thread and they are filled with hate mail. But like Posg said. 10% have HD let alone people who have HDTV's and don't subscribe to their HD tier. I am guilty of that one.

Thanx for that thread POSG, will it make a difference. Maybe not, but there is close to 300,000 members here at AVS if 25% are TWC customers that is 75,000 that could say something productive. They will take some notice after that.

I read an awful lot here about how badly some cable and satellite operators have mangled HD picture quality to add channels. Perhaps once they figure their bandwidth issues out, they'll improve their quality, but maybe not.

TWC Raleigh has chosen the path of making technlogical improvements first, and then adding services, rather than cobbling together some Frankenstein monster mess of Erector Set dish installation, supporting multiple and non compatible compression solutions, and obsoleting home reception equipment at the subscribers expense.

I'll wait, thank you.

I read an awful lot here about how badly some cable and satellite operators have mangled HD picture quality to add channels. Perhaps once they figure their bandwidth issues out, they'll improve their quality, but maybe not.

TWC Raleigh has chosen the path of making technlogical improvements first, and then adding services, rather than cobbling together some Frankenstein monster mess of Erector Set dish installation, supporting multiple and non compatible compression solutions, and obsoleting home reception equipment at the subscribers expense.

I'll wait, thank you.

I want NFL Network-HD, ESPN2-HD, CineMax-HD, Starz-HD. However, I would much rather have quality over quantity.

I had D* for years, at first it was jawdropping how good the HD PQ was (when there was only 1 or 2 HD channels). When I moved to NC, I was floored at how good the PQ of TWC was. The D* PQ had degraded to a point it was quite sad to watch.

Keep the quality, then add quantity. I wish there was a better solution. :)

I want NFL Network-HD, ESPN2-HD, CineMax-HD, Starz-HD. However, I would much rather have quality over quantity.

I had D* for years, at first it was jawdropping how good the HD PQ was (when there was only 1 or 2 HD channels). When I moved to NC, I was floored at how good the PQ of TWC was. The D* PQ had degraded to a point it was quite sad to watch.

Keep the quality, then add quantity. I wish there was a better solution. :)

At TWC Raleigh, the engineering department seems to have more influence over upper management decisions than the marketing department. Martha Stewart might say: "It's a good thing."

At TWC Raleigh, the engineering department seems to have more influence over upper management decisions than the marketing department.

Once you cross the dreaded bandwidth/bit starvation threshold, it's very hard to go back, just look at D*.

I call TWC and complain (just to let them know we are watching), but would rather have an HD picture I can show others and have them say "WOW that's incredible". The alternative is "So, that's HD???"

I read an awful lot here about how badly some cable and satellite operators have mangled HD picture quality to add channels. Perhaps once they figure their bandwidth issues out, they'll improve their quality, but maybe not.

TWC Raleigh has chosen the path of making technlogical improvements first, and then adding services, rather than cobbling together some Frankenstein monster mess of Erector Set dish installation, supporting multiple and non compatible compression solutions, and obsoleting home reception equipment at the subscribers expense.

I'll wait, thank you.
I am with you POSG, of course there are stations that do it right like ESPN 2 would since ESPN had already mastered the art of 720p, but to rush for the channels that we don't have doesn't make sense. The food network, the MTV station, more premium chocies(starz hd, max hd, and others) are channels you always hear TWC doesn't have but when questioned you would be hard to find many complaints of the HD they do offer, While the other providers have had a lot of negative feedback. This is all off topic so I will end it hear. I just hope that I don't have to wait as long as Toad did for any new stations, But I feel we will have a much better SD signal as well as more choices before the end of 2007.

I'll ask this again - which Cable Company LOCATIONS actually airs NFL-HD (NOT NFL NETWORK) in HD 24/7?

Are there 10? Is there 1?

If not, this thread should be renamed NFL-HD vs Cable Companies - as every single one one is a holdout.

No HD here...just SD

I'll ask this again - which Cable Company LOCATIONS actually airs NFL-HD (NOT NFL NETWORK) in HD 24/7?

Are there 10? Is there 1?

If not, this thread should be renamed NFL-HD vs Cable Companies - as every single one one is a holdout.

The NFL Network does not broadcast in HD 24/7, neither does ESPN-HD. There is lots of SD content on the channel.

The NFL Network does not broadcast in HD 24/7, neither does ESPN-HD. There is lots of SD content on the channel.


It is a dedicated 24/7 HD Channel on 127W (one of the 2 major HD distribution C-Band Satelllites).

Going by your definition, ESPN-HD and ESPN2-HD should not have a seperate channel either.

It has a fulltime HD Channel on E*, just like ESPN-HD and ESPN2-HD, TNT-HD, DiscoveryHD etc.

So again, which Cable Companies (if any) have given NFL-HD a fulltime HD Channel - and if they have not, why is this in the HD Thread as ALL Cable Systems are hold outs.

It is a dedicated 24/7 HD Channel on 127W (one of the 2 major HD distribution C-Band Satelllites).

Going by your definition, ESPN-HD and ESPN2-HD should not have a seperate channel either.

It has a fulltime HD Channel on E*, just like ESPN-HD and ESPN2-HD, TNT-HD, DiscoveryHD etc.

So again, which Cable Companies (if any) have given NFL-HD a fulltime HD Channel - and if they have not, why is this in the HD Thread as ALL Cable Systems are hold outs.

Which thread would YOU put it in ??? :confused:

Going by your definition, ESPN-HD and ESPN2-HD should not have a seperate channel either.


That's putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I think the NFL Network should have a full time slot in the lineup just like ESPN-HD or ESPN2-HD do today on many providers. There are not many channels out there pushing HD 24x7. I even see SD content on HBO-HD and there are a lot more movies than football games out there.

So we are back to the question - which cable system has NFL-HD 24/7 or are we at a 100% holdout?

Are you sure there is such a thing? On the NFL Network site is says -

NFL Network will broadcast primetime regular-season NFL games in 2006 as part of the new NFL "Run Up to the Playoffs" package beginning with the Denver Broncos vs. Kansas City Chiefs on Thanksgiving night.

In any case it looks like TWC could afford to pay the NFL. From today's Wall Street Journal these are the results for the last three months. (That's billion with a b.)

"Time Warner Inc.'s third-quarter profit nearly tripled, helped by gains from asset sales and strong results in cable services. The company also reaffirmed its 2006 full-year business outlook.

The New York media company reported Wednesday net income jumped to $2.32 billion, or 57 cents a share, from $853 million, or 18 cents a share, in last year's third quarter."

I am " pleased " we are helping TWC to do so well while they continue to screw over customers wants. Way to go TWC!

In any case it looks like TWC could afford to pay the NFL. From today's Wall Street Journal these are the results for the last three months. (That's billion with a b.)

"Time Warner Inc.'s third-quarter profit nearly tripled, helped by gains from asset sales and strong results in cable services. The company also reaffirmed its 2006 full-year business outlook.

The New York media company reported Wednesday net income jumped to $2.32 billion, or 57 cents a share, from $853 million, or 18 cents a share, in last year's third quarter."

does it break it down to what just the cable division's profits were?

In any case it looks like TWC could afford to pay the NFL. From today's Wall Street Journal these are the results for the last three months. (That's billion with a b.)

"Time Warner Inc.'s third-quarter profit nearly tripled, helped by gains from asset sales and strong results in cable services. The company also reaffirmed its 2006 full-year business outlook.

The New York media company reported Wednesday net income jumped to $2.32 billion, or 57 cents a share, from $853 million, or 18 cents a share, in last year's third quarter."

Yes, Time Warner can afford to pay for NFL or any other service they want.

Because you are going to end up funding it.

But just as a grocery store does not carry every item made, they have limited space and must decide the best mix for the customers given their given square footage and at what price.

If every product wanted to get end of aisle placement when you first walked in the store - it would obviously be impossible for that to happen.

The NFL has to give. Several games does not make a basic channel.

Now, if you are talking NFL-HD, which apparently no one in this thread is talking, the square footage problem comes into serious play - regardless of where its placed.

Thats the first I heard that NFL wants on the "basic" tier. Where I am, the local franchising authority has contractually mandated that the basic tier cost no more than $6.75 / month. This includes channels 2-25 in my area, plus the HD locals. Adding on the NFL Network to this tier would be an impossibility from a profit margin standpoint.

I suspect when people are referring to the basic tier it means "expanded basic," which for me includes channels 26-78.

Poor reception on local cable
Neil Best
Newsday
November 3, 2006

It is the sports media Fight of the Millennium.

In one corner is the NFL Network, the upstart slugger from the strongest brand in television.

In the other are some of the nation's richest cable TV outfits, including local heavyweights Cablevision and Time Warner, who so far have refused to carry the channel under the NFL's terms.

SportsWatch has spent months talking to each side, attempting to unravel the tale of the tape, one that has led to trash talk, ill will, even rival Web sites: "iwantmynflnetwork.com" and "nflgetreal.com."

Finally, 20 shopping days before the NFL Network shows its first live, regular-season game, here is our split decision: Both sides are wrong ... and right.

Basic point No. 1: The current expanded basic system is insanely bloated and unfair to households with a limited range of interests - especially those uninterested in sports.

Basic point No. 2: As long as the current system exists, the NFL Network deserves a larger place than its current 41 million homes nationally - less than half as many as ESPN - and its availability only on satellite and fiber optic outlets in our area.

At the risk of eyes glazing over, some reasoning and background behind those positions:

Nothing on basic cable is as costly as sports, and no place has more of it than New York.

Even Cablevision homes without digital boxes receive YES, SNY, MSG, FSNY and two ESPNs. Total cost: more than $10 per month per subscriber, vastly more than non-sports stations cost.

And that's a lot of hours to fill. One Sunday night last month, those six channels were showing poker, boxing, boxing, poker, poker and Cincinnati vs. South Florida football. Your cable dollars at work!

Sports are not even the half of it. The dial is overloaded with channels that are cheaper than sports but still add up. So the cable companies are correct that a line must be drawn somewhere.

They would happily put the NFL on a "sports tier" so only those who want it pay for it. Such tiers cost about $5 a month and feature the likes of NBA TV and the Tennis Channel.

Seems reasonable.

Alas, the NFL Network won't allow itself to be relegated to the lightly subscribed backwater that sports tiers so far have been. The league passed up $400 million in rights fees to keep the eight-game package for itself and wants the financial benefits that come from broader distribution.

If that sounds greedy, consider the NFL's understandable frustration with a system that does not adhere to supply-and-demand rules, the ones we usually follow here in America.

Rather, it is a quagmire mucked up by favor trading among cable and media companies with the leverage to get carriage for channels they own. That in turn helps generate so much cash that millions can be wasted on, say, paying off a fired NBA coach.

At about 70 cents per subscriber a month, the NFL Network is much more expensive than it was before adding eight games but much less costly than a regional channel such as Cablevision-owned FSNY, which features Islanders and Devils games that get very low TV ratings, plus poker and a hodgepodge of other live events.

There is no disputing the unmatched appeal of the NFL, and the NFL Network, which turns three years old tomorrow, does offer more than the eight games on which its relentless ad campaign has focused.

It has preseason games and many other programs for diehards, although as with all sports channels, 24 hours of compelling programming has proven to be a challenge.

No, it's not for everyone. Nor are Jewelry Television, Hallmark Channel, Fuse or even FSNY.

The system is broken. But there are better ways to fix it than shutting out the NFL.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/ny-spmedia034958596nov03,0,5873089.column?page=1

I suspect when people are referring to the basic tier it means "expanded basic," which for me includes channels 26-78.

You are correct. Sir !

Good article RemyM:
That is the first article I saw that had a objectional view. With both sides of pros and cons. It is very good and I am a NY Daily News reader not Newsday. But he is in the New York area which has almost every sport channel that is out there except for the NFL net. Like he said those sport channels have trouble broadcasting 24/7 so why wouldn't the same apply to the NFL net. They are a single entity network. Just football all the time. I know you have some fans that can enjoy it and the network does give good coverage of other items but at what cost. Like he points out these sports channels already add $10 + to our bills and add in another 2 dollars for something most of us probably do not watch other then the 8 games. If everyone has paid attention to this stalemate that is the issue here. When is the enough, enough? Maybe this holdout might change the way we view cable in the future, maybe it won't. But the only thing I know is those 8 games are really the only selling point for the network that would draw any substandtial viewership. But those games need to be in HD, which many of the cable companies do not have, it is an SD channel. TWC and cablevision has to look at it that way also. If they accept this deal they would have to hold 2 channels (SD & HD) for the NFL net but for it to make any real impact it had to be an HD channel. I know if I am paying for this I would want to see these games in HD anything else would not be worth my money. But does shutting the net out help matters of course not. When YES and cablevision had their little dispute who lost out, the viewers, a lot of which where in the Bronx. That is as bad as it can get with these wars. Living in the same borough and not being able to see your home team. All local teams have had a shut out in the past 5 years. TWC/Cablevision vs NFL is much bigger because almost 20 mil are or will be affected.

Which really gets me to HDTVFANATIC statement, why is this such a big problem in an HDTV form? Most people aren't getting the channel in HD anyway. From what I am reading Direct is giving the HD service if you already have the ST tier package. Dish is offering it with a sport package. But most cable companies that have the network is only scheduled to give it in SD. What gives with that? Does that mean they will charge even more? Which leads me back to the question, when is enough enough?

Which really gets me to HDTVFANATIC statement, why is this such a big problem in an HDTV form? Most people aren't getting the channel in HD anyway. From what I am reading Direct is giving the HD service if you already have the ST tier package. Dish is offering it with a sport package. But most cable companies that have the network is only scheduled to give it in SD. What gives with that? Does that mean they will charge even more? Which leads me back to the question, when is enough enough?

The funny thing would be if the MSO did add this to basic and charged the roughly $1.50 to $2 per month to everyone that it would add to the bill, Everyone that wants the channel would be screaming what a bloody rip off it was because they want it in HD and its not.

Good article RemyM:
From what I am reading Direct is giving the HD service if you already have the ST tier package. Dish is offering it with a sport package.

Just to clarify, NFLHD comes with any E* HD package -- I'm currently watching "Game of the Week" on it. I subscribe to DishHD Platinum, but it even comes with DishHD Bronze. As far as D* is concerned, I'm not 100% sure, but I believe they only have the SD channel. Not sure what D* will do during the games, as far as broadcasting in HD.

Called E* to setup my service on Halloween, installer was out the next day at noon. I made the switch from TWC and couldn't be happier. I not only got what I wanted with TWC (ESPN2HD & NFL Network), but am even happier with NFLHD (even though not all content is widescreen). All the while I'm paying a lot less & getting a LOT more. :)

The funny thing would be if the MSO did add this to basic and charged the roughly $1.50 to $2 per month to everyone that it would add to the bill, Everyone that wants the channel would be screaming what a bloody rip off it was because they want it in HD and its not.

That is what Comcast boston (It was Media One at the time) did with the last pay RSN NESN.
When NESN-HD games were on 882 you only needed Basic and Digital classic to get it,now you need enhanced (Standard cable with box)

Just to clarify, NFLHD comes with any E* HD package -- I'm currently watching "Game of the Week" on it. I subscribe to DishHD Platinum, but it even comes with DishHD Bronze. As far as D* is concerned, I'm not 100% sure, but I believe they only have the SD channel. Not sure what D* will do during the games, as far as broadcasting in HD.

Called E* to setup my service on Halloween, installer was out the next day at noon. I made the switch from TWC and couldn't be happier. I not only got what I wanted with TWC (ESPN2HD & NFL Network), but am even happier with NFLHD (even though not all content is widescreen). All the while I'm paying a lot less & getting a LOT more. :)
But that is my point you have to pay extra for the HD package. So you already get SD for a little extra added to your bill then you have to pay extra for your HD channels, so you in turn are getting hit twice. Which we would also if TWC gave up and put it on the way the NFL net wants it. You might get more but you are paying more to get that channel. Your bill might be less if you are a new customer, but I could drop my bill also if I got one of the triple play packages with cable. But that is a whole other thread of how all these companies cater to new customers rather then existing ones. Once that intro offer expires your prices will increase. Unless you are very good at not taking NO for an answer and bargining skills.

The funniest part of this whole thing from the satellite side (except for the MSO Cable side which I think is hilarious that 895 posts have been made and actually NO CABLE SYSTEM APPARENTLY HAS THE NFL-HD CHANNEL - DESPITE WHAT PEOPLE HERE THOUGHT) is that in their launch party - which big wigs, media buyers and the like showed up - they gave EVERYONE free coupons for a years free D* service and a free D* install, and a $99 rebate on HD Service.

Have you gotten that from D*? Further, have you gotten it without signing a 1 or 2 year commitment?

And after all that, E* is the only service that has NFL-HD on fulltime - yet the NFL in their in their infant wisdom to get advertisers to the NFL Network gave out D* Equipment.

E* wasn't even represented at the launch.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002424145

time warner says that 24% of its customer base is nfl fans. since cable is full of nothing but niche channels, i must say that is a pretty good sized niche. i wonder how many of their customer base is hgtv or food network fans? i bet it is less than 24%

Just to clarify, NFLHD comes with any E* HD package -- I'm currently watching "Game of the Week" on it. I subscribe to DishHD Platinum, but it even comes with DishHD Bronze. As far as D* is concerned, I'm not 100% sure, but I believe they only have the SD channel. Not sure what D* will do during the games, as far as broadcasting in HD.

Called E* to setup my service on Halloween, installer was out the next day at noon. I made the switch from TWC and couldn't be happier. I not only got what I wanted with TWC (ESPN2HD & NFL Network), but am even happier with NFLHD (even though not all content is widescreen). All the while I'm paying a lot less & getting a LOT more. :)

How are you getting the network (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) HD channels?

NO CABLE SYSTEM APPARENTLY HAS THE NFL-HD CHANNEL - DESPITE WHAT PEOPLE HERE THOUGHT
Wrong. My cable system (Armstrong Cable in Medina, OH) has NFL Network HD (channel 180). Not much currently on in HD though. Only some of the weekly NFL Replay shows (depends on whether original source from CBS, Fox, NBC
, etc. was shown in HD) and Game of the Week, which is filmed in 16mm. You would think that the super rich NFL could afford to buy HD cameras and other necessary equipment for their studio shows. Even TNT-HD did that for their NBA studio pre-game coverage.

Wrong. My cable system (Armstrong Cable in Medina, OH) has NFL Network HD (channel 180). Not much currently on in HD though. Only some of the weekly NFL Replay shows (depends on whether original source from CBS, Fox, NBC
, etc. was shown in HD) and Game of the Week, which is filmed in 16mm. You would think that the super rich NFL could afford to buy HD cameras and other necessary equipment for their studio shows. Even TNT-HD did that for their NBA studio pre-game coverage.

This is wonderful....we finally have found 1 Cable System that actually has NFL-HD - even though the entire Armstrong Cable System only has 227,800 total subs nationwide - I have no idea how many of those are in Medina....but if we consider that Armstrong is in 23 markets and they are all small towns - and Comcast is the biggie in Medina - if the 227,800 are evenly distributed over 23 towns - they have 10,000 subs in Medina? And if Industry averages hold, about 1,500 of those would be HD subs...

but let's update the list


Cable Systems with NFL-HD Channel

1) Armstrong Cable - Medina Ohio
2) ??????
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)

And don't get me wrong - Armstrong Medina does have a pretty good HD line up compared to some MSOs, with all the major OTA networks, Fox Sports Ohio in HD, most of the East Feed Movie Channels except StarzHD and TMC - no ESPN2 or INHD - but again -a pretty decent lineup.

How are you getting the network (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) HD channels?

OTA using an indoor antenna. E* does not yet offer locals in HD in the Cincinnati area. I pick up all Cincinnati and Dayton networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, PBS, CW) with the indoor in one location/setting (after a LOT of fine tuning). I subscribe to the locals to have an SD backup (as well as guide info) in case I want to record multiple network shows, I just pick one to record in HD. If I really want to watch the 2nd show in HD I can watch it live in the other room. Not a huge sacrifice for me.

Once E* adds locals in HD I will use the Sat locals as my 2nd and 3rd options for recording locals in HD -- the show I care about the most at the time will of course be recorded via OTA tuner. :)

You can call him AL !


http://www.nydailynews.com/10-31-2006/news/ideas_opinions/story/466658p-392692c.html

Sack NFL plan to squeeze home viewers

By REV. AL SHARPTON

It's a little-known secret that on Sunday mornings during the fall and winter, pastors across America occasionally shorten sermons to let the congregation get home to watch football on TV. Ministers know that for worshipers who can't afford to visit the Meadowlands, their living room becomes Giants Stadium, their children celebrating every touchdown from the family couch.
Today, outrageous prices for tickets, concessions and parking are shutting more and more fans out of stadiums. It now costs a family of four over $300 to see a game. It's no wonder the stands usually contain a far lower percentage of minorities than the playing field does.

If that weren't bad enough, the cost increases are about to burst into your living room. To add to the riches it already earns from TV deals with the likes of Fox, CBS and ESPN, the NFL is rolling out its own cable channel, the NFL Network. And if the league gets its way, all cable consumers - viewers of the channel or not - will pay more as a result, to the tune of $600 million each year.

Why? Because the league is demanding that cable carriers include the network in basic channel lineups, meaning all consumers would share the cost. With a channel as expensive as the NFL Network, that will work out to nearly $1 per subscriber each month, digging even deeper into working families' wallets.

What's particularly insulting about the move is just how little new content the new network is going to offer. Though you would think a channel called the NFL Network would be loaded with game coverage, it will actually only offer eight games over the course of the entire season.

Yes, sports teams and leagues have been creating their own networks for years. But by trying to force its channel into the basic package, the NFL, the fattest cat of all the sports leagues, is up to something different. If it gets away with bamboozling consumers, then every sport will be emboldened to do the same, littering our cable bills with additional increases.

That is why Time Warner and Cablevision have decided not to carry the network under the NFL's terms. Good for them. Other cable companies ought to follow that example. Let's send the NFL a message: Have cable companies offer your network as part of a premium sports package. That way, die-hard fans will have the option to upgrade - but others won't subsidize their preferences.

Working-class Americans are willing to sit in the figurative bleacher seats to watch football on any given Sunday. But they shouldn't have to pay a pretty penny for the privilege.

Sharpton is president of the National Action Network.

Originally published on October 31, 2006

= = = =

Good to know which side of this the Reverend is on !

That is why Time Warner and Cablevision have decided not to carry the network under the NFL's terms. Good for them. Other cable companies ought to follow that example.My cable company (Insight Communications - Peoria, Ill) has stated that the NFL network will not be on it's "Classic Service" package (extended basic in some terminologies). Currently it's on a digital sports tier. Their comment: "we continue to maintain our position that the NFL
Channel's rate demand are out of line for the programming offered and do not
expect to move it to Classic Service"

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6390058.html?display=Breaking+News

Cox Cuts Deal for NFL Games

By John M. Higgins -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/9/2006 5:40:00 PM

Customers of Cox Communications will be able see a controversial package of live football games that NFL Network starts airing this month, but at not as many subscribers as the league has sought.

When the NFL Network’s new eight-game, Thursday-Saturday package kicks off on Thanksgiving, Cox agreed will carry the matches, but only on a digital sports and information tier seen by a relatively small portion of its subscriber base. Anyone can buy the tier, but currently only 35% of Cox's subscribers get digital and only 60% of those buy the sports and information tier. Hence, only 21% of Cox’s subscriber will get the NFL games.

The NFL has sought to use the new package of live games to secure wide carriage on cable systems’ basic tiers. However, Cox systems has an older deal allowing them to pay an extra fee for the live games, but keep NFL Network on the sports tier. This way, the additional costs only effect the bills of sports fans willing to pay up, rather than every single basic subscriber. “We are pleased to be offering the games in a way that is appropriate for our customers and gives them ability to choose,” says Bob Wilson, Cox’s senior vice president of programming. Depending on the market, other channels on the tier include ESPN News, NBA TV, Fox Soccer Channel; Fit TV, ESPN classic and Fuel.

The league badly needs 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. That’s a $2.4 billion investment in the cable network in game rights alone. The league is spending $100 million to market the network, aimed largely at prodding subscribers to lobby their cable operators or switch to satellite TV. The network is currently in 41 million homes, 27 million of those via satellite carriers. Comcast -- the largest cable operator -- is carrying the network on a somewhat favorable digital tier for this season, but in January plans to shove the network on to a very thinly-viewed sports tier.

I agree with the REV!!

I agree with the REV!!

Wow...it's not often that I agree with Al :eek:

You guys should really make sure you read this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?threadid=722121

You guys should really make sure you read this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?threadid=722121
good thread, just like every start-up channel. There are complaints. We will never be satisfied.

Since NFL Network was launched in November of 2003, it hardly seems like a startup to me.

The interesting part is even if you want to say this is a startup - which it isn't - even the startup have new material in HD - its legacy stuff that isn't.

They can't even get HD highlights from current week games.

And the majority of their schedule right now is replays of last Sunday's games - yet most of those are not in HD either.

good thread, just like every start-up channel. There are complaints. We will never be satisfied.

Start up channel quality at mature channel pricing. :mad: :mad: :mad:

So Cox is putting them on a tier, Comcast put them on a tier. Why can't TWC put them on a tier? (I don't even care about getting this channel, but it seems odd to me...)

Cox systems has an older deal allowing them to pay an extra fee for the live games, but keep NFL Network on the sports tier.

That's why.

Interesting comment from Comcast rep (ComcastCG) on the Chareston, SC local thread -

"I am looking into the NFL Network games being on INHD."

Interesting comment from Comcast rep (ComcastCG) on the Chareston, SC local thread -

"I am looking into the NFL Network games being on INHD."

Well if that's the case then it's only because Comcast will preempt INHD to put the games there. NFL Network has no deal with INHD to do that and the games do not appear on INHD's schedule.

This link is not about the NFLN directly but it is about the arrogance of TWC and its concern towards its customers. For those of you that don't know the channel that the football is on is owned by TW and they will not carry it in our area! So I am sure that we will get the NFLN, ESPN2HD and ESPNU real soon.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/15978811.htm#recent_comm

This link is not about the NFLN directly but it is about the arrogance of TWC and its concern towards its customers. For those of you that don't know the channel that the football is on is owned by TW and they will not carry it in our area! So I am sure that we will get the NFLN, ESPN2HD and ESPNU real soon.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/15978811.htm#recent_comm


It's interesting.

We have a simple analogy in management.

I am on a corner north of an intersection viewing an accident.

Across the street on a corner to the south is someone viewing the same accident from the opposite direction.

What I see is 180 degrees opposite of what the person on the other side of the intersection sees - although we both see the same event.

So who's viewpoint is correct?

In negotiations - there are always 2 sides to every story.

So Cox is putting them on a tier, Comcast put them on a tier. Why can't TWC put them on a tier? (I don't even care about getting this channel, but it seems odd to me...)

They are grandfathered in on an old agreement.

But of course the NFL won't do it for TWC - because they have found out the true demand from these old deals :D

So who is it really that giving their "customers" the shaft?

As I said, there are always 2 sides to any negotiation.

TWC is saying no to the NFLnet but they must have said yes to someone, TWC in NYC finally got StarHD and MaxHD. 2 new channel. I would clap but I don't pay for them, YET.

This article and $2 might get you coffee at Starbucks! Seriously, the first real "discussion" from both sides and a third party idea about NFLN and TWC. Worth a read.

http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=30855

Oh no you might need another $2 for more coffee -- The Senate is getting involved in the TW/NFLN debate tomorrow.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6390592

Oh no you might need another $2 for more coffee -- The Senate is getting involved in the TW/NFLN debate tomorrow.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6390592


Not to gloat but, I CALLED IT ! If i need to go back and find my post, I will. I knew it was just a matter of time before the idiots in Washington got involved.

We'll get a $2 fee charged on our basic cable/DBS plans, the legislation will force it into a separate sports tier (even on D*) at an additional charge. Sports tiers will have a $5 tax that will fund research that will determine how much football negatively affects the environment.

Oh, and the NFL Network must air 6 hours of children's programming a day and is not allowed to air any live NFL games so those constituents attending the game at the stadium will not miss out on any premieres.

No doubt that government can mess up just about anything they set out to fix :D

That said, when an issue bubbles up to the point that Congress wants to hold hearings, the parties involved usually strike a deal pretty quickly to try and save face with the public.

what I like someone to clear for me is isnt the NFL charging EXTRA for the 8 games alone?

meaning I have tow cable companies in my city Insight and Sigecom BOTH do carry NFL NETWORK ( on a digital tier) both will not carry the 8 games saying we cant afford them.

So I assumed just becasuea provider has the newtwork they do NOT get the 8 games automaticly?

Someone clear this all up for me please

Actually, I believe the Senate hearing is focused more on NFL ST and other exclusive sports agreements than the TWC/NFLN carriage dispute - despite the connection implied in that summary.

what I like someone to clear for me is isnt the NFL charging EXTRA for the 8 games alone?

meaning I have tow cable companies in my city Insight and Sigecom BOTH do carry NFL NETWORK ( on a digital tier) both will not carry the 8 games saying we cant afford them.

So I assumed just becasuea provider has the newtwork they do NOT get the 8 games automaticly?

Someone clear this all up for me please
My cable company Knology also carries the NFL on their digital tier and said due to increase licensing fees from the NFL network they will not carry the live 8 games. Said its not fair to increase the fee across the board to their customers. First I was disapointed but now I thinking screw the NFL and their price increase. There's only about 6 teams that are any good period.

This article and $2 might get you coffee at Starbucks! Seriously, the first real "discussion" from both sides and a third party idea about NFLN and TWC. Worth a read.

http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=30855


""The NFL Network has not budged from their original demand, which is that we put the channel on our standard tier of service at a figure that would amount to about $140 million from us ," said Mark Harrad, senior VP of corporate communications for Time Warner. "We believe strongly that the NFL Network belongs on a sports tier, where the customers that are true fans and want to see those particular eight games have a chance to get it and pay a fee for it, rather than have all of our customers pay a higher fee by virtue of putting it on a standard tier where there isn't a high demand for all they offer."


TWC = 13,250,000 Customers

$10.56 per customer before TWC adds in its mark up for profit, adminstration cost, blah blah blah.

No thanks!

GO TWC!!!!!!

TWC needs to come off of some of those record profits theyv'e squeezed from their victims...errrr subscribers. Instead they take the "protector of the consumer" role in order to further their own agenda.

TWC needs to come off of some of those record profits theyv'e squeezed from their victims...errrr subscribers. Instead they take the "protector of the consumer" role in order to further their own agenda.

a couple of months ago Forbes ran an article saying that 5 NFL teams were worth over $1 billion each. the rest weren't too far below that. they could just as easily suck it up and give in a little, or are their profits more sacred?

Today's WSJ, 11/14/06 Page B1, has an article on the current NFL Network vs. Cable holdouts.

"With Time Warner, Cablevision and other companies that the network has yet to strike a deal with, the league hasn't only insisted on its high price, but also pushed to keep it part of its standard cable package, which doesn't charge subscribers premium fees to get the network. The NFL is in a legal battle with the nation's largest cable company, Comcast Corp., over the channel being in a special tier of sports channels. Cox Communications Inc. will continue showing the games on a special tier for digital-cable subscribers, but neither company will comment on how they worked out such an arrangement."

For WSJ subscribers: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116347066760722270.html

TWC needs to come off of some of those record profits theyv'e squeezed from their victims...errrr subscribers. Instead they take the "protector of the consumer" role in order to further their own agenda.

Perhaps they are making record high profits because they didn't make STUPID DEALS?

HMMMMM.......

If you own some kind of investment vehicle like a mutual fund you may actually be benefiting from those record profits. Or at least more so than you would from the NFL increasing their record profits at the expense of TWC's record profits. :)

a couple of months ago Forbes ran an article saying that 5 NFL teams were worth over $1 billion each. the rest weren't too far below that. they could just as easily suck it up and give in a little, or are their profits more sacred?

At least with TWC, they are a publicly traded company that is making profits for anyone that wants to purchase their stock. The NFL is privately held by the team owners and represents the epitome of "fat cats". Don't get me wrong, I love the NFL but they are the ones that need to have a more realistic world view on the value of their product.

Perhaps they are making record high profits because they didn't make STUPID DEALS?

HMMMMM.......

STUPID DEALS, like Sinclair is trying to force on MediaCom???

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

well, it is 9 days to game day. I guess I have to settle for the 2 games that will be on network TV broadcast in it's HD glory that I and many others have been watching for the last 25 years.
This issue is clearly about these 8 games but I will not cry over not getting them. Untill the Jets or Giants are playing in one of them. But even then a cable game is sometimes shown on a local channel when there is a dispute like this.

If this was Soccer and we were in Europe, people would be getting ready to riot in the streets :D

well, it is 9 days to game day. I guess I have to settle for the 2 games that will be on network TV broadcast in it's HD glory that I and many others have been watching for the last 25 years.
This issue is clearly about these 8 games but I will not cry over not getting them. Untill the Jets or Giants are playing in one of them. But even then a cable game is sometimes shown on a local channel when there is a dispute like this.

Unfortunately this isn't the case for all locals. In my case, living in Dayton, OH, only the Cincinnati OTA networks had the option of picking up the Bengals/Ravens game on 11/30. And unfortunately for us Dayton TWC subscribers the NBC affilliate in Cincy won the bid and of course we get the Cincy CBS and FOX affiliates over cable.

Oh well, I'll just go to a bar and watch it.

Unfortunately this isn't the case for all locals. In my case, living in Dayton, OH, only the Cincinnati OTA networks had the option of picking up the Bengals/Ravens game on 11/30. And unfortunately for us Dayton TWC subscribers the NBC affilliate in Cincy won the bid and of course we get the Cincy CBS and FOX affiliates over cable.

Oh well, I'll just go to a bar and watch it.
This is what the NFL doen't understand, by draggin this out the people that need to watch these games are getting the shaft. the majority TWC subscribers are located on the east coast and we get coverage for all of our local games. (At least in NYC we do) But someone in the mid east or west, will be screwed out of a game if it was on a thursday and don't have NFLnet.
That will be everyone's option if they want to watch the thurday games. The bars will get more customers, but only if that bar has SAT.

well, it is 9 days to game day. I guess I have to settle for the 2 games that will be on network TV broadcast in it's HD glory that I and many others have been watching for the last 25 years.
This issue is clearly about these 8 games but I will not cry over not getting them. Untill the Jets or Giants are playing in one of them. But even then a cable game is sometimes shown on a local channel when there is a dispute like this.

The 12/30 Giants vs Redskins game on NFLN will be shown on WWOR, My 9, in NY. NFL TV rules state that all cable games must be shown on local OTA stations in the participating teams home markets.

The 12/30 Giants vs Redskins game on NFLN will be shown on WWOR, My 9, in NY. NFL TV rules state that all cable games must be shown on local OTA stations in the participating teams home markets.
see like I said the other guys get screwed, we are covered for this season in NYC. Thanks for the update remy, maybe TWC will get My9 in HD before the game then I get the game in HD also.

NFL Gets Roughed Up On Hill
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 11/14/2006

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) had some particularly tough questions for the NFL Tuesday, raising the spectre that the league might have violated antitrust laws in its move to seed its NFL Network cable network with regular season games.

If the NFL is raising prices and limiting distribution of the network without a countervailing business reason, doesn't that violate the Sherman antitrust act, Specter asked Landel Hobbs, Time Warner COO. Hobbs said he was not an attorney, but that the marketplace should settle the issue, not Washington.

Time Warner doesn't carry the NFL Network, arguing that it is too expensive and that it the NFL Network wants it carried on basic, while Time Warner wants it on a digital sports tier, where only those who want the channel will have to pay for it.

Hobbs said the channel at NFL's price would be one of TW's five most expensive, while its ratings aren't in the top 30.

The NFL decided not to sell an eight-game package to a network or outside cable operator--like Comcast from Specter's home state--but instead keep it in-house on its own NFL Network, which had previously been confined to replays, summaries, preseason games, and various sports shows. Then, it sought better carriage and more money given the added premium content.

Time Warner balked and doesn't carry the network. Comcast, which does carry the network, wants to move it to a sports tier. The NFL has sued to block that move, arguing it violates the contract.

In a committee hearing Tuesday on sports rights and the various carriage fights among cable, satellite and sports leagues, Specter also questioned why the NFL was not making its Sunday Ticket package, which has been a big draw for DirecTV, available to Comcast and other cable operators.

Jeffrey Pash, executive VP and general counsel of the NFL, said that to make it available to 80 million or so customers would undermine the basic economic structure of games delivered over broadcast TV.

DirecTV EVP Daniel Fawcett said that the Sunday Ticket exclusive contract raised no antitrust issues and was in keeping with Congress' intention in the 1992 Cable Act to promote competition from new entrants like satellite.

Hobbs said it was disingenuous for DirecTV to claim that it needs special protection through exclusivity and that it was "past time that DirecTV realize it cannot play the new entrant card."

The committee is planning to hold a hearing Dec. 8 on vertical integration--distributors also owning programming--that could touch on some of the same subjects

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6390919.html?display=Breaking+News

Probably already mentioned, but just received my TWC bill and as of my next bill price will go up around $10.00 with no new channels.

Probably already mentioned, but just received my TWC bill and as of my next bill price will go up around $10.00 with no new channels.
No increase here in NYC, yet!

NFL Network Sues Comcast Over Games
By John M. Higgins Broadcasting & Cable 11/14/2006

In its continuing struggle to secure wide carriage of a controversial – and cable operators say high-priced – package of football games, NFL Network has gone to court to force Comcast to carry the channel on a wider tier.

Industry executives familiar with the suit – filed under seal in New York State last month and only disclosed this week – say it centers narrowly on how Comcast is slating the network on systems it acquired from Adelphia Comunications and Time Warner this summer. But it points more broadly to the NFL quest to recover its massive $2.4 billion investment in NFL Network.

That cost stems from the league’s decision to schedule a package of eight games on its own network rather than collect money by licensing them to another outlet. The league’s best offer came from Comcast-owned network Versus, which offered a six-year deal at $400 million per year plus an equity stake in the channel.

NFL Network wants cable and satellite TV operators to pay a fat 70-90 cents per subscriber and carry the channel on basic cable. Operators that don’t have a deal with the network – notably Time Warner Cable and Cablevision – have balked at such high fees. Some others with older, less expensive deals – notably Comcast and Cox – are carrying the channel on a digital tier that only 20-30% of their customers pay for.

When Comcast bought two million subscribers from Adelphia and Time Warner, the operator applied the terms of its existing NFL Network contract to the new systems and said it would carry the network, but only on a digital tier. The NFL disputes that, contending the old contract doesn’t apply.

" Comcast believes it has the right to carry the NFL Network on a sports tier and will vigorously defend its position," Comcast says in a statement adding that "the NFL is trying to force cable companies to charge many consumers for programming they don’t want."

An NFL spokesman would not comment on the suit, which he says remains under seal.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6391180

NFL Network Sues Comcast Over Games
By John M. Higgins Broadcasting & Cable 11/14/2006


Comcast says in a statement adding that "the NFL is trying to force cable companies to charge many consumers for programming they don’t want."

That's funny. How many channels does that statement apply to?

I thought the same thing.

Just how many channels am I forced to pay for that I don't want?

It is really strange (not to mention hypocritical) that Comcast chooses to use that argument. Especially after it rejected dealing with the NFL on the ST package because it was too expensive.

STUPID DEALS, like Sinclair is trying to force on MediaCom???

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

We'll see how smart that deal was as time goes on.

NFL Gets Roughed Up On Hill
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 11/14/2006

Hobbs said the channel at NFL's price would be one of TW's five most expensive, while its ratings aren't in the top 30.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6390919.html?display=Breaking+News

That says it all right there.

GO TWC!!!!!

How on earth could it possibly BE in the top 30 when its on so few systems in so few markets.

Thank You, Mr. Obvious.

How on earth could it possibly BE in the top 30 when its on so few systems in so few markets.

Thank You, Mr. Obvious.

Nor is it in the Top 30 in ANY MARKET where it IS ON CABLE.



TWC needs to come off of some of those record profits theyv'e squeezed from their victims...errrr subscribers. Instead they take the "protector of the consumer" role in order to further their own agenda.


Since you seem to be so smart, the only reason they made record profits was because the picked up Adelphia which gave them Los Angeles and other large MSO.

So much for your inaccurate post of record profits because of squeezing it out of consumers.

If Ford purchased GM, its profits would be at a record level as well. However, those record profits could also be accomplished with 25% less profit at each division - which is only masking the true picture.

In other words, its a meaningless figure as of course your profit increases when you buy another company - and even if your profit is flat from your current systems, it goes up when you buy new systems.

Anyone that knows anything basic about financial matters knows one must look at a ProForma basis and that certainly is not showing record profits.

I guess that isn't obvious to you either?

NFL NETWORK STALLS LOCALLY. NFL Network president Steve Bornstein said yesterday he does not expect to have a carriage deal with Cablevision or Time Warner before the network's first regular-season game Thanksgiving night. "Right now, we're not getting a lot of traction," he said of talks with the area cable giants ...

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/ny-spbriefs154976912nov15,0,685429.story

NFL Network Sues Comcast Over Games
By John M. Higgins Broadcasting & Cable 11/14/2006

In its continuing struggle to secure wide carriage of a controversial – and cable operators say high-priced – package of football games, NFL Network has gone to court to force Comcast to carry the channel on a wider tier.

Industry executives familiar with the suit – filed under seal in New York State last month and only disclosed this week – say it centers narrowly on how Comcast is slating the network on systems it acquired from Adelphia Comunications and Time Warner this summer. But it points more broadly to the NFL quest to recover its massive $2.4 billion investment in NFL Network.

That cost stems from the league’s decision to schedule a package of eight games on its own network rather than collect money by licensing them to another outlet. The league’s best offer came from Comcast-owned network Versus, which offered a six-year deal at $400 million per year plus an equity stake in the channel.

NFL Network wants cable and satellite TV operators to pay a fat 70-90 cents per subscriber and carry the channel on basic cable. Operators that don’t have a deal with the network – notably Time Warner Cable and Cablevision – have balked at such high fees. Some others with older, less expensive deals – notably Comcast and Cox – are carrying the channel on a digital tier that only 20-30% of their customers pay for.

When Comcast bought two million subscribers from Adelphia and Time Warner, the operator applied the terms of its existing NFL Network contract to the new systems and said it would carry the network, but only on a digital tier. The NFL disputes that, contending the old contract doesn’t apply.

" Comcast believes it has the right to carry the NFL Network on a sports tier and will vigorously defend its position," Comcast says in a statement adding that "the NFL is trying to force cable companies to charge many consumers for programming they don’t want."

An NFL spokesman would not comment on the suit, which he says remains under seal.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6391180

lol.....all those posters praising Comcast for caving in and carrying this network early on and critical of the other cable systems for not doing the same - only now to find out it get moves to an extra cost digital sports tier next year - just as Cox said it is planning.

So now we are looking at zero MAJOR systems carrying it on the basic system next year.

too funny.

I am one of the sports biggest fans but I also believe the NFL's position is ridiculous. The NFLN belongs on a digital tier. I think there would be a big uplift in revenue for them but they are shooting for Mars when the Moon would be better. They should remember that pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered :D

Maybe this will empower Congress to take a look at all the interlocked deals cable (and satellite) companies have made with so many networks over the years that force all viewers to pay for dozens of channels they don't want or watch.

If so, this will be a very good thing indeed.

hmm... with comcast raising rates every other year... someone should take a look at that...

the NFL's position is ridiculous. The NFLN belongs on a digital tier.

WE, Oxygen, Lifetime, LMC and LRW should be on a Womens Tier.

This is a good time to come together and cause the NFL Network to fail. I love pro football, but I do not want an HD channel that offers 8 live regular season games a year to survive and occupy valuable cable and satellite bandwidth. Further, I do not want to have to pay for it to continue to exist.

Maybe this will empower Congress to take a look at all the interlocked deals cable (and satellite) companies have made with so many networks over the years that force all viewers to pay for dozens of channels they don't want or watch.

If so, this will be a very good thing indeed.
This Governement won't do anything to our rates or the other channels, We get all these other channels to get a selection. That was cables biggest asset in the early day, but then it grew to 5 music, 10+ shopping, 5 News, then more & more. Will will never get to pick our channels because that would put big business out of business. Think of it How many people would pay for shopping channels or C-span when we really knew how much we would have to pay. The governement involvement is just a way to make "Joe subscriber" think that they have a say when it comes to conflicts just like this one.

WE, Oxygen, Lifetime, LMC and LRW should be on a Womens Tier.

I agree 110% but that will never happen because of stay at home mom's that watch those channels all day long. On my wife's off days, she's tuned right in for the latest she-woman man hater TV movies on those channels :D

hmm... with comcast raising rates every other year... someone should take a look at that...

Should they also look into the electric company raising rates, or the water company, gas company, sewer authority, accountants, lawyers, doctors, insurance companies and everyone else that raises rates and prices to cover rising costs?

Should they also look into the electric company raising rates, or the water company, gas company, sewer authority, accountants, lawyers, doctors, insurance companies and everyone else that raises rates and prices to cover rising costs?

Only if they are an exclusive source for the product or service. Otherwise, charge what the market will bear. That is true even in the cases of pharmaceutical and health insurance companies.

Just had a TW tech guy at our house for a cable box problem. He had the rate increases for 2007 for TW in our area. Based on what I have my rates will go up $4 a month with no added services. TW is such a customer caring group :( So all the talk about NFLN etc is just smoke.

Just had a TW tech guy at our house for a cable box problem. He had the rate increases for 2007 for TW in our area. Based on what I have my rates will go up $4 a month with no added services. TW is such a customer caring group :( So all the talk about NFLN etc is just smoke.

Yep, the price of electricity, employee benefits, contract increases for channels carried and gasoline for all those trucks on the road are the same as it was 2 years ago too, lol.

Just had a TW tech guy at our house for a cable box problem. He had the rate increases for 2007 for TW in our area. Based on what I have my rates will go up $4 a month with no added services. TW is such a customer caring group :( So all the talk about NFLN etc is just smoke.

what do you have? that doesn't seem to jibe with this--

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8842669&&#post8842669

btw, do you think the NFL cares about the fans more than TWC cares about its customers?

The increases are in the basic tier and the digital tiers -- including the sports tier! I do have Road Runner but not the phone service since it would be more expensive for me so I don't get any "discounts". I really don't think TW cares about its customers -- they don't have to. They have the only game in town for many of us. And many are happy with what they offer. The problem is those of us that want what we want not what they want to give us. I pay $7 a month now for ESPNHD and some other junk channels that we never watch except for an occasional hockey game and the early Masters. We cannot go to another store in many cases -- I cannot have a dish where I live or I would. I have TW or no TV that is my only choice.

I would really rather pay by the channel even if it cost more. I have a lot of what they send into my home blocked -- all the on demand, all the shopping, all the religious channels, Fox news, and several others. I don't want them and it makes channel switching a lot easier and quicker when they are blocked.

I realize I got a little off topic but someone will remind me of that because that is what many of you on this forum seem to do very well.

I got my bill today with the brochure for next year's rates. It shows an increase of $4 a month for what I have. It might be $3 a month if they include basic in the speed of light deal, hard to say. At any rate it is $3 or $4 a month. Each of the following is a $1 Basic, DVR box, 3 digital tiers, Speed of light. Oh wait they added another religious channel and another Spanish channel outside of the Spanish tier. I am sure those both had a higher ranking of interest than the NFLN, ESPN2Hd or ESPNU.

My rate is going to go through the roof next year. Back at the beginning of the year I called them and complained about the prices. The phone rep gave me a great deal:

Road Runner
Digital Cable
HD Tier
Cable Box

all for $86.00. Great deal, but only for 12 months. I've only got a couple months left until my bill goes back to 'normal' at well over $100.00.

Interesting comment from Comcast rep (ComcastCG) on the Chareston, SC local thread -

"I am looking into the NFL Network games being on INHD."

He may be right.
http://www.inhd.com/product.jsp?prodId=57519&mp=cr1
http://www.inhd.com/product.jsp?prodId=57560&mp=cr1
They don't have show times or appear on their schedule though. I'm assuming it will be blacked out if your cable company doesn't carry NFLN, like mine.

Oh wait they added another religious channel and another Spanish channel outside of the Spanish tier. I am sure those both had a higher ranking of interest than the NFLN, ESPN2Hd or ESPNU.That may not be the reason your cable company added them. If those channels are broadcast channels, the cable company may not have a choice.

Many broadcasters of that type elect "must carry," which means the cable company MUST carry them. The flipside is that these stations can't charge for their signal, as stations which elect "retransmission consent" can.

Neither are must carry -- one is Day Start TWC is a part owner! and the other is TV Azteca and it appears that TWC has some money in that one also.

Neither are must carry -- one is Day Start TWC is a part owner! and the other is TV Azteca and it appears that TWC has some money in that one also.

DayStar is on broadcast TV in many areas. Folks who DO watch it think it is a cable channel.

I really don't know Daystar is channel 169 in the Myrtle Beach area. It is religious so I have it blocked.

Imagine being in Buffalo where the fine folks of TWC really are out to protect subscribers from Football.

http://www.wben.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=06292

Time Warner Warning: May Drop Fox 29 & WNYO

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 07:09 AM - WBEN Newsroom

WBEN's Dave Debo
Exclusive WBEN Windows Media Audio



Buffalo, NY (WBEN) - Time Warner has sent out a required notice, saying they may have to drop local Fox Network affiliate WUTV and co-owned WNYO from their cable line-up.

If the company jettisons WUTV, it would be removing all NFC football games from local cable, just a few months after pulling the plug on The NFL Network in a similar contract dispute.

WUTV is more commonly known as Fox29. WNYO is the former WB49, and carries programs from the new "My TV" network. Both stations are owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., and involved in a contract dispute between that company and Time Warner in 36 cities nationwide, including nearby Rochester NY.

The two sides have failed to reach an agreement to keep Sinclair's channels on cable. The current deal runs out in January. Neither company would comment, after repeated calls from WBEN, but the cable company has scheduled a news briefing for Tuesday morning.

In a public notice, and similar messages the cable company has crawled across both stations, the company says "We are usually able to obtain renewals or extensions of such agreements, and carriage of programming services is discontinued only in rare circumstances."

When the cable company took over the Buffalo-area Adelphia franchise and eliminated the NFL Network, it initially failed to provide the required 30 day notice before discontinuing the service.

* Now, if they could only get rid of the pesky CBS AFC affiliate, NBC affiliate and ESPN - Buffalo would be NFL Free. Think of all the money this would save TWC subscribers. Perhaps, Cable Rates would slow to under 6% per year ?

That's actually nothing. If they were pulling the CBS affiliate, all of Western New York would be up in arms. :D

TWC put up a similar notice here about the FOX O&O in this market (WJW/8 Cleveland), but I don't think anyone expects it to be pulled.

Imagine being in Buffalo where the fine folks of TWC really are out to protect subscribers from Football.

http://www.wben.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=06292

Time Warner Warning: May Drop Fox 29 & WNYO

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 07:09 AM - WBEN Newsroom

WBEN's Dave Debo
Exclusive WBEN Windows Media Audio



Buffalo, NY (WBEN) - Time Warner has sent out a required notice, saying they may have to drop local Fox Network affiliate WUTV and co-owned WNYO from their cable line-up.

If the company jettisons WUTV, it would be removing all NFC football games from local cable, just a few months after pulling the plug on The NFL Network in a similar contract dispute.

WUTV is more commonly known as Fox29. WNYO is the former WB49, and carries programs from the new "My TV" network. Both stations are owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., and involved in a contract dispute between that company and Time Warner in 36 cities nationwide, including nearby Rochester NY.

The two sides have failed to reach an agreement to keep Sinclair's channels on cable. The current deal runs out in January. Neither company would comment, after repeated calls from WBEN, but the cable company has scheduled a news briefing for Tuesday morning.

In a public notice, and similar messages the cable company has crawled across both stations, the company says "We are usually able to obtain renewals or extensions of such agreements, and carriage of programming services is discontinued only in rare circumstances."

When the cable company took over the Buffalo-area Adelphia franchise and eliminated the NFL Network, it initially failed to provide the required 30 day notice before discontinuing the service.

* Now, if they could only get rid of the pesky CBS AFC affiliate, NBC affiliate and ESPN - Buffalo would be NFL Free. Think of all the money this would save TWC subscribers. Perhaps, Cable Rates would slow to under 6% per year ?

Threre always D** or DISH!

Nice article here, http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8LHNKQG0.htm

http://www.midcocomm.com/

We'll be getting the games. Also in HD on INHD1

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

You mean like ESPN and the RSN's, which each cost at least twice as much monthly as NFLN would. Does this mean TWC will try to push ESPN to a sports tier when their carriage agreement is up? Everyone pays for channels they don't want. TWC should be at the forefront of a-la-carte if they really are concerned about cable subscribers, but so far only Cablevision has publicly supported it.


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

OK, but only people who buy the milk have to pay for it, not everyone who walks into the store. TWC would carry your product, but only if people that actually want it have to buy it.

Plain and simple, both sides offer self serving comments and could really care less about the fans, just their bottom lines.

ESPN offers much more than NFL games, you get sports news, as well as college and pro games in all major sports.
The NFL has their few games they offer each week and the rest of the week is basically filler. How much NFL can you actually watch?
Its all about viewers, if ESPN has the numbers to stay in a basic tier then I guarantee you they will keep it there. The NFL thinks their product is as popular as ESPN. This is more a case of the NFL getting greedy and not trying to get their product out to as many people as possible. If they were smart they would negotiate lower rates let their product grow then once it reaches a point that they have a large base of viewers, raise the cost when the contract is up for renewal.

Considering the source I'm not sure if any of this is true. I heard today on ESPN radio that NFL Network is not good for football. Here's what I heard...

1. Unlike calling your cable/satellite service to ask for ESPN 2 to be added, your not able to do the same thing for the NFL Network.

2. Since the announcers work for NFL Network, they will not be able to really ask the hard hitting questions or criticize the players like the announcers easily can on CBS, FOX, ESPN etc because of who is paying them to be announcing the games.

I just wonder if the harsh comments made by ESPN radio has more to do with them not being able to show as many games or if there is any truth to this matter?

I personally like the fact that there is more choices for NFL in HD. After all, I do get my programming on DirecTV.

Bad - very, very bad. The network itself as it exists for most of the year, no problem. Taking games that were originally scheduled to air on channels everybody already gets and sticking them on their own network which is carried by very few, however, is a reprehensible act.

They want to charge an excessive fee (increased by 400%) to the cable companies and they want their network on the "basic" tier, which of course is a recipe for increased rates for everyone whether they're interested in this network or not. But if the cable companies stick it on a specialized sports tier, where those who want it can presumably pay for it, they won't be seen in as many homes and thus won't be able to charge advertisers a premium for commercial time. See, they want to get paid, and get paid a lot, from both sides of the fence. ESPN also does this, but at least they have other compelling programming 12 months a year.

The NFL is trying to use their leverage as the country's most popular spectator sport to, in essence, extort outrageous fees from the cable companies. In this case, the cable operators are clearly standing on the moral high ground. I hope they continue to fight this blatant money grab from a league whose pockets are already bulging with more money than they know what to do with. Frankly, there is already more than enough NFL football on each week, and pretty soon they take over Saturdays as well. And this is coming from a big fan of the game and a Panthers PSL holder. Enough is enough.

I don't see any reason why you can't call your cable provider to ask them to carry the NFL Network. It's all about them negotiating with the NFL to carry it, and the more subscribers who want it the more likely they will be to decide to carry it. Both satellite companies already carry the NFL Network, so that point is moot.

I've watched NFL Total Access and they don't seem to hold back asking tough questions during interviews. I can't imagine there would be many restraints during the broadcast of a game. But it's not like Madden is exactly hard hitting himself....

You don't think Bryant Gumble will "ask the tough questions" or be critical? Please. He already got in hot water for saying negative things about the NFL and I'm sure he will continue to do so. I may not agree with what he has to say, but he never hesitates to give his opinion on air, no matter who he's working for.

The exact opposite of what archiguy said. As long as ESPN is allowed to extort $4 - $5 a month from every subscriber (based on the popularity of the NFL), I support anything that will motivate the NFL to pull the games (eventually) from them.

I also don't buy the "compelling programming 12 months a year" statement as a justification. ESPN leveraged carriage based entirely on a single NFL game a week. Then they increased rates in order to bid ridiculous amounts of money to expand their network. I personally couldn't care less about ESPN beyond those 16 or 17 SNF games, but I'm forced to subsidize that additional "compelling content" simply because of those NFL games.

Let the NFL Network carry their own cable games and price them at what the market will bear based on their own merits. If a cableco wants to pass on the network, that's their choice. But I wouldn't say they somehow have the "moral high ground" when it comes to carriage issues - not unless you have blinders on and ignore the other 40 or 50 channels they require us to get and pay for.

I just wonder if the harsh comments made by ESPN radio has more to do with them not being able to show as many games or if there is any truth to this matter?

ESPN is showing fewer games ?

ESPN offers much more than NFL games, you get sports news, as well as college and pro games in all major sports.
The NFL has their few games they offer each week and the rest of the week is basically filler. How much NFL can you actually watch?
Its all about viewers, if ESPN has the numbers to stay in a basic tier then I guarantee you they will keep it there. The NFL thinks their product is as popular as ESPN. This is more a case of the NFL getting greedy and not trying to get their product out to as many people as possible. If they were smart they would negotiate lower rates let their product grow then once it reaches a point that they have a large base of viewers, raise the cost when the contract is up for renewal.

1) NFL Network shows more of and about the American Pastime of Football than ESPN every year.

2) Though available in roughly half * the homes of most cable channels, the NFL Network ranks 30th the last time I heard. Makes you wonder what their ranking would be if they were widely available and totally in Basic or Extended.

3) I do agree that they should have started with gradual increases in Rates. They could have afforded to ramp up that way and avoid the sudden increase.

* with placement within Sports Packages or Digital Tiers in many cases.

The NFL doesn't need to let their product grow. The product is the games and they are already among the most popular programming available to any network. As far as ESPN offering more than NFL games, that doesn't mean a whole lot. You could say that about a dozen other channels that have much more diverse programming like Discovery, A&E, or F/X. Diverse programming doesn't equate to more valuable programming.

And it's not "all about viewers". ESPN is on the basic tier because of forced bundling, not because the number of viewers they attract each day.

You forgot * Versus on you list. More value or interesting than the NFL Network because of the wide variety of Sports programming - no way.

* Most people do !

Speaking of Versus - isn't it funny that Comcast felt they should be able to force carriage on a basic tier and jack the price up to $0.60 because they got some NHL games - but the NFL asking $0.10 more is outrageous?

I think the NFL Network carrying games is good. My opinion is slightly biased because I get NFL Network through Comcast here in central PA. However, I think the "hardhitting questions" line is irrelevant. What I want to see are announcers that talk about football strategy and things pertinent to the game. If I want to watch interviews of Jay-Z or Christian Slater, I'll watch E!
Furthermore, I watch that segment with Rich Eisen every week where he questions one of the rules officials about questionable calls from the previous week. So I just don't buy that argument about being soft.
Lastly, given ESPN's PQ with football games this year, they should lose the right to carry any further games if they are advertising them as HD. What they have done to the PQ is despicable. The PQ on NFL Network HD's "Replay" is second to none.

The exact opposite of what archiguy said. As long as ESPN is allowed to extort $4 - $5 a month from every subscriber (based on the popularity of the NFL), I support anything that will motivate the NFL to pull the games (eventually) from them.


Well, I guess that's what makes a horse race. ;) Do you honestly think the NFL Network will be a better bargain down the line if ESPN's Monday night game goes away? You know, "new Boss, same as the old Boss".....

The only time I want to watch NFL games on a Thursday is on Thanksgiving afternoon, sprawled on the couch and half asleep from the tryptophan buzz. :D

I'm going to be real pissed if they schedule any home Panther games on a Thursday night next year.... :mad:

I'm going to be real pissed if they schedule any home Panther games on a Thursday night next year.... :mad:

This has nothing to do with the NFL channel. They have had many Thursday night games prior to this. I know. I've been to a few.

It appears that even though my cable provider (Knology) carries the NFLN, the slate of Thursday and Saturday games will be blacked out. This is very disappointing.

I switched from TWC to Knology for 2 reasons. HD broadcast of FOX and the NFLN.

ESPN offers much more than NFL games, you get sports news, as well as college and pro games in all major sports.
The NFL has their few games they offer each week and the rest of the week is basically filler. How much NFL can you actually watch?
Its all about viewers, if ESPN has the numbers to stay in a basic tier then I guarantee you they will keep it there. The NFL thinks their product is as popular as ESPN. This is more a case of the NFL getting greedy and not trying to get their product out to as many people as possible. If they were smart they would negotiate lower rates let their product grow then once it reaches a point that they have a large base of viewers, raise the cost when the contract is up for renewal.

I agree. ESPN has more exclusive NFL games than the NFL network. As you've said, it also has college football, the NBA, MLB baseball, college basketball, horse racing, etc. Literally thousands of live broadcasts of sporting events-- plus news coverage of the NFL and every other sport. Over the course of a year, this programming cumulatively results in ratings that will likely far outpace the cumulative ratings for the NFL. For those that keep throwing out the NFLs ratings as being the best around, Ohio State College Football (ESPN on ABC) has met or exceeded the NFLs ratings at least twice this year. But even that alone doesn't mean ESPNU should be on the expaned basic tier. A few games can't justify a network.

ESPN is a far superior product to the NFL network. It deserves to be on the expanded basic tier. The NFL network has 8 games. While those 8 games will no doubt attract viewers, there really isn't much else. Not even the NFL propaganda machine can throw out 24/7 content for the remainder of the year.

This has nothing to do with the NFL channel. They have had many Thursday night games prior to this. I know. I've been to a few.

Oh, I know. I just don't like night games (that I have to attend) in general and Thursday night games in particular. The Thursday night games have always been just a blatant TV money grab; the league doesn't care how much it inconveniences the fans.

Why can't TWC have the same deal Comcast got? Greed perhaps!

Oh, I know. I just don't like night games (that I have to attend) in general and Thursday night games in particular. The Thursday night games have always been just a blatant TV money grab; the league doesn't care how much it inconveniences the fans.

As much as I'm getting fed up with some of the nfl like the thursday games, the full flex, the REGULAR SEASON games in Europe, I must say that I think their telecast will be better than that of NBC or ESPN for primetime. Atleast I pray that they don't pull the entertainment bs that these two networks having doing all season.

If NFL REALLY wanted to they could have bought back the super Bow rights and AIR THAT ONLY ON NFL!

Personally I would have taken those 8 games and put them on HBO (with the local broadcasts being on PBS stations with HBO footing ALL costs)

In this case, the cable operators are clearly standing on the moral high ground.

Moral High Ground?!?!? Cable Operators ?!?!!? lol! :eek: I believe that's the first time ANYONE has put those two concepts in the same sentence! :D