It should be real interesting to see/hear just what happens when the casual (normal/everyday) Fan tries to find the KC/Den game tomorrow night. I suspect there's at least a few of them out there.

If the NFL Network is smart, they'd promote the heck out of their game during the two early ones.

Who they (these casual Fans) gonna call, Ghostbusters or their Cable Company ?

ESPN is showing fewer games ?

Your right, probably not. However I would think that the NFL Network will take games away from what would have been broadcast for free on regular network TV.

I wonder how the quality will be with the NFL games on the NFL Network HD channel on DirecTV? Are there any other channels that share the same transponder with the NFL Network HD channel?

Well, considering the antics of ESPN in covering NFL Monday Night Football this season (the dancing, the Slater, the rapper), the sooner the NFL takes over cable coverage of its programming from ESPN the better.

And I'm a Time Warner subscriber that can't get NFL network too.

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

But the Super Bowl is what it is because nearly everybody can -- and a HUGE chunk of the viewing public DOES -- watch it. More importantly, they watch the commercials even if they don't give a hoot about the game.

And how much are the advertisers paying for a spot?

That's a lot for the NFL to give up, and they're not stupid enough to go that far.

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.

I don't understand how the NFL network can be bad for football. They are football.

Point #1). Why not?

Point #2). If you ever watch the Sunday afternoon football highlights show on the NFL network, those guys can be very critical of performances that day.

Talk radio is much like this forum. Stuff is thrown against the wall to see if it sticks.

Don

Hard hitting questions? In football? When did anybody do that, esp ESPN?

I will find it extremely ironic if the NFL commentators on their own network will be "allowed" to comment openly during the game regard officiating.

I wonder if we will hear them say something to the effect of "That was a terrible call, or a blown call, etc." like we do on Fox, NBC, CBS, ESPN, etc.

Considering the fact that a coach in a post-game news conference gets fined for criticizing the refs and their calls, will the NFL allow their own employees to criticize the refs ?

MNBugeater

I gotta say, the Gumbles do sound alike. (voice, not necessarily comments) Been awhile since I've heard Bryant, had to remind myself it was him.

The game topic is at the top. This topic is for the titled discussion.

I think its bad, because most people WON'T have access to games. Probably fine for the league and owners and the money they make, but not good for the continued popularity of the NFL. They'd be essential replacing ad revenue with more control(spin) and subscription money. I'm sure they really could care less as long as they are making money, whether they are popular or not. See boxing, and basketall(more and more).

I will find it extremely ironic if the NFL commentators on their own network will be "allowed" to comment openly during the game regard officiating.

I wonder if we will hear them say something to the effect of "That was a terrible call, or a blown call, etc." like we do on Fox, NBC, CBS, ESPN, etc.

Considering the fact that a coach in a post-game news conference gets fined for criticizing the refs and their calls, will the NFL allow their own employees to criticize the refs ?

MNBugeater

If you can find me one example of when a commentator said a blown call was terrible, please post it on this site. None of the national commentators go that far. None since Pat Summerall and Madden were together have I heard an analyst openly say a call by a ref or play call by a coach was bad. The only one who currently will say something is Al Michaels, and he usually doesn't get anywhere as derrogatory as Summerall. "Interesting" is the most you'll get these days.

i cant get it in hd im not watching, i was 100 percent going to watch the game as thanksgiving = football but im not gonna watch a non hd game no more PERIOD.

So spidey it is.

Topics merged.

Why can't TWC have the same deal Comcast got? Greed perhaps!
NOT OFFERED, it was basic/standard or no network/

I had an interesting experience this evening. I went over to some friends house for dinner that are DIE HARD Football fans in every sense of the word.

After dinner, they knew the Broncos and Chiefs were on - so they went to the TV to get the game.

I knew what the outcome would be, but I expected this to be a wonderful focus group experience of what would happen when they could not get this game.

Bottom line - they went through all 300+ channels looking for it. Went back to Fox and CBS several times.

After 5 minutes, they said, "well, I guess its not on TV" and went on to watch another show.

That was it - no bitching. No moaning. No damn the cable company. Just a "well, I guess its not on TV"

And then I realized again why I again refer to the J6P mentality - and its blatantly obvious. Fact is, unless someone has D* ST that don't get every game anyway! If someone expects every game, they will already have D* ST.

The rest of the public accepts that some football games are on TV and others are not. It's been that way since the invention of cable TV.

So bottom line - It was no big deal.

Major, major, major strategic error for the NFL!!!!!

... and next week...and next week after that...and so on...

Eventually even the out-of-touch will realize that they're missing something and wonder why. Maybe they'll even try to contact the NFL, but without doubt, complaining to their Cable company will be the easiest thing to do. If they are football fans of any measure, they will talk to their friends over the next couple of days and the light will come on much faster !

Doesn't matter - they don't expect to get all the games.

The die hard fans that MUST HAVE EVERY GAME already know you can get all the games on D* ST if you pay for them.

So much for the NFL's strategy.

I think it's been proven around here that even some the most die hard NFL Fans will not pay the high costs of the NFL:ST (check out the huge post counts every time it comes to the next years Bill, year after year). The same is true about Digital Tiers and Sports Packages, even if they're only a 'few bucks more'.

What many still expect is that they will get games on ESPN and the NFL Network because both are supposed to be widely available to the American Sport Fans! It seems outrageous that America's Pastime (or 'Game' as they are promoting it now) is the one Sport where a game is offered for a National audience and the Cable companies choose not to carry it because they're cost conscience for the benefit of their subscribers. How can anyone say that not having the games on the NFL Network benefits subscribers (Check out which Sports games have hit record overall Cable ratings over the years, it's not a coincidence or fluke).

Cable and Cost Conscience (or them caring about their customers for that matter) can never truly be factually used in a proper sentence- it's never occurred.

I'm betting many local papers and a few National News stories will have stories about this. Check your Sports section tomorrow and find out.

Want some irony with that ?

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/11/24/sports/professional/19_26_9911_23_06.txt

Ailing Chiefs owner enjoys holiday win

By: DOUG TUCKER - Associated Press

KANSAS CITY, Mo. ---- Lamar Hunt lobbied the NFL for 37 years to put a Thanksgiving game in Kansas City, but he had to listen to his Chiefs beat Denver on Thursday night over the phone in his hospital bed.

"Lamar, I hope you're feeling better," an emotional Trent Green said moments after the Chiefs wrapped up a 19-10 victory in a key AFC West showdown.

"This win," the Chiefs' quarterback added, "is for you."


The 74-year-old Hunt, who has missed only a handful of games since founding the franchise, was admitted to a Dallas-area hospital on Wednesday, bitterly disappointed he would not see Kansas City's inaugurating the NFL's new Thanksgiving tripleheader.

"He's doing much better," said his son, Clark Hunt, the chairman of the Chiefs. "He had a lung issue and needed to go to the hospital and let them take a look at it."

Having the Chiefs dedicate the game to him was certain to be a great tonic, the younger Hunt said.

"This game has been important to him really going back to the AFL days. He's worked since the merger to try to get the game back here."

Like most NFL fans, Hunt was unable to view the game. His hospital is not hooked into the NFL Network, which broadcast the game to about 40 million of the country's 111 million television homes. So his daughter held the phone near her television while he listened on the other end.

*** the rest of the story is about the game.

Want some irony with that ?

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/11/24/sports/professional/19_26_9911_23_06.txt

Ailing Chiefs owner enjoys holiday win

By: DOUG TUCKER - Associated Press

Like most NFL fans, Hunt was unable to view the game. His hospital is not hooked into the NFL Network, which broadcast the game to about 40 million of the country's 111 million television homes. So his daughter held the phone near her television while he listened on the other end.


So sad to think that one of the last things this man could potentially hear in his life is the voice of Bryant Gumbel over the phone! :(

Hadn't though of that !

Then again, that agitation might have kept him from quietly slipping away.

He was in Dallas - he could not have seen the game if it had been a Sunday afternoon game either.

He also lobbied for 37 years to put a Thanksgiving game in KC - For 37 years there were no games on NFL Network, therefore, he lobbied the NFL for 37 years to put a Thanksgiving game in KC on CBS, FOX, ABC, ESPN, TNT or NBC - not the first ever NFL Network game.

And what makes you think they would have all cable channels in the hospital anyway?

You're grasping at straws. He's not JQPublic either.

After so many viewers were shut out of the Thanksgiving night's game, many of whom have cable providers which carry the NFL Network but would not pick up the rights fees for the telecasts, it is apparent to me that a compromise will be happening soon.

I can see both fat cat entities doing the following...the NFL, which wants to promulgate and strengthen its network, will back off and drastically reduce its $$ demand FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR, with the understanding that next's years games will have the fees, thus giving the providers 9 months or so to to educate their customers and work out rate increases for those customers willing to pay for it.

At least I hope so... :rolleyes:

The funny thing about this is that many imply that the NFL Network is having trouble with most Cable Companies. The facts on this should make anyone change their minds:

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/16088495.htm

" In less than three years, the NFL's 24/7 network has welcomed aboard 173 cable companies, including four of the five largest, reaching 40 million of the 111 million television households."

Let's see, 173 Cable Companies have signed up but a very few mega-fat-cows did not.

Makes you wonder who is responsibe !

I like to consider myself a big football fan. I turned on the NFL network last night expecting to watch the game. Instead it had an NFL Films show on and there was a message scrolling on top of the screen saying that we would not get the live games on NFL network. I call the Cable company(more out of curiousity than anger) and I got a recorded message saying that the NFL network wanted more money to show the live games. I think it has to do with my cable company (Insight) only offering the NFL network on a digital tier rather than the basic service. As upset as I am by this I really don't blame the cable company for not caving in and I am certainly not going to cancel my cable and switch to dish because I can not get these extra games. I have been very pleased with my cable service and I will give them the benifit of the doubt on this situation even if I end up being proven wrong.

I had an interesting experience this evening. I went over to some friends house for dinner that are DIE HARD Football fans in every sense of the word.

After dinner, they knew the Broncos and Chiefs were on - so they went to the TV to get the game.

I knew what the outcome would be, but I expected this to be a wonderful focus group experience of what would happen when they could not get this game.

Bottom line - they went through all 300+ channels looking for it. Went back to Fox and CBS several times.

After 5 minutes, they said, "well, I guess its not on TV" and went on to watch another show.

That was it - no bitching. No moaning. No damn the cable company. Just a "well, I guess its not on TV"

And then I realized again why I again refer to the J6P mentality - and its blatantly obvious. Fact is, unless someone has D* ST that don't get every game anyway! If someone expects every game, they will already have D* ST.

The rest of the public accepts that some football games are on TV and others are not. It's been that way since the invention of cable TV.

So bottom line - It was no big deal.

Major, major, major strategic error for the NFL!!!!!

I don't agree with this--I think the public (or at least the public that watches football to begin with) completely expects night games, especially on a holiday, to be nationally televised. I can only think of one exception, when there was a KC-Miami game on a Friday night that was moved due to a hurricane, where a night game wasn't nationally televised. It might not be the end of the world for most people, but I guarantee that displaced Denver and KC fans who didn't have access to the NFL Network were plenty upset last night. And I'm sure there were a lot of other football fans who would have loved to watch the game at home but couldn't.

Even if I could have gotten the game I would have watched Miami/BC anyway.

I like to consider myself a big football fan. I turned on the NFL network last night expecting to watch the game. Instead it had an NFL Films show on and there was a message scrolling on top of the screen saying that we would not get the live games on NFL network. I call the Cable company(more out of curiousity than anger) and I got a recorded message saying that the NFL network wanted more money to show the live games. I think it has to do with my cable company (Insight) only offering the NFL network on a digital tier rather than the basic service. As upset as I am by this I really don't blame the cable company for not caving in and I am certainly not going to cancel my cable and switch to dish because I can not get these extra games. I have been very pleased with my cable service and I will give them the benifit of the doubt on this situation even if I end up being proven wrong.

I had the same problem with Wide Open West here in Cleveland. We've had the NFL Network since day 1, and I was shocked when the LIVE game was blacked out last night. WOW said the NFL wants more money to show the live games. I'm totally disgusted with the NFL, this is pure greed on their part.

The NFL must be in bed with the satellite companies because on their iwantnflnetwork.com website and in the phone message when you call them they are encouraging people to switch to satellite.

I also think it's shameful that the NFL expects us the football fans to call our cable companies to complain as if it's purely a cable company problem. Chickensh*t greedy NFL can't fight their own battles on a professional level. They need J6P to do their dirty work.

They are encouraging people to switch to DBS because NFL Network is available on DBS - what's so odd about that?

All networks want J6P to call and complain to force carriage. Funny that there's no outrage that ESPN, Viacom or Lifetime pulled the same thing and you're paying for them now - but the NFL is "greedy" for playing the game that the other networks and cablecos created. For anybody that rolls over for Limetime, but draws the line at the NFL Network - you are not the demographic to which football is meant to appeal.

They are encouraging people to switch to DBS because NFL Network is available on DBS - what's so odd about that?

All networks want J6P to call and complain to force carriage. Funny that there's no outrage that ESPN, Viacom or Lifetime pulled the same thing and you're paying for them now - but the NFL is "greedy" for playing the game that the other networks and cablecos created. For anybody that rolls over for Limetime, but draws the line at the NFL Network - you are not the demographic to which football is meant to appeal.

There's a difference here - when ESPN went on the air did they come back 6 months later and say "oh by the way any LIVE sporting events will cost extra"?
The NFL Network has no value to me without live coverage. It's like I'm paying for a car without the engine.

Also keep in mind that the NFL Network has been doing all their advertising claiming once you get the NFL Network you get these 8 wonderful games. It turns out this is completely false. There's really the NFL "history channel" without live games and "NFL Network Plus" with the live games.

I have read 2 posts today where there cable company has the NFL Network, yet still were not able to broadcast the game because the NFL wanted even more money to show to game. I cannot believe people are still sideing with the NFL on this. Can you imagine HBO telling the cable companies that they can broadcast there channel, but when there is a popular movie on or a made for HBO movie on, the cable must give them more money to show it on there cable system. Not sure there would be as many people on here sideing with HBO on that. The NFL is just flat out greedy here and I hope known of the cable companies give in to them. In fact I wish all the cable companies would just drop the network completely. Instead of sending emails and making phone calls to the cable companies, we all should be sending them to the NFL. The NFL needs the cable companies alot more then the cable companies need the NFL Network. If the NFL wins, then you will see all games being on pay per view when the current contracts run out with the networks.

It is almost like we are heading for tiers within channels. You pay for HBO but do you want to watch the Sopranos? That will be extra. Do you want to watch American Idol on Fox? That will be extra.

I have read 2 posts today where there cable company has the NFL Network, yet still were not able to broadcast the game because the NFL wanted even more money to show to game. I cannot believe people are still sideing with the NFL on this. Can you imagine HBO telling the cable companies that they can broadcast there channel, but when there is a popular movie on or a made for HBO movie on, the cable must give them more money to show it on there cable system. Not sure there would be as many people on here sideing with HBO on that. The NFL is just flat out greedy here and I hope known of the cable companies give in to them. In fact I wish all the cable companies would just drop the network completely. Instead of sending emails and making phone calls to the cable companies, we all should be sending them to the NFL. The NFL needs the cable companies alot more then the cable companies need the NFL Network. If the NFL wins, then you will see all games being on pay per view when the current contracts run out with the networks.

It seems to me that one obvious compromise, other than the NFL lowering its fee, would be to back off on the standard cable demand. BUT not all the way to a special digital sports tier. I bet TWC would be a lot happier about the NFL fee if they could at least make it a digital cable exclusive. No special tier, but it requirers customers to upgrade to a converter to receive it. That would mean extra lease money and a better up-sell potential for TWC that might mitigate the fee.

I don't agree with this--I think the public (or at least the public that watches football to begin with) completely expects night games, especially on a holiday, to be nationally televised. I can only think of one exception, when there was a KC-Miami game on a Friday night that was moved due to a hurricane, where a night game wasn't nationally televised. It might not be the end of the world for most people, but I guarantee that displaced Denver and KC fans who didn't have access to the NFL Network were plenty upset last night. And I'm sure there were a lot of other football fans who would have loved to watch the game at home but couldn't.

That's the difference - as you stated, your post is your opinion on how the public would react.

My post is not an opinion - it is actual observation of the some hard core football fans and their reaction.

You can have your opinion on how you think people can react all you want. That doesn't make it so.

I'll go by what they actually do.

The business landscape is laid out with failures by people thinking they know how the public will react. The NFL's negotiations with the large cable companies is now in this category as their strong arm tatics/marketing blitz did not result in 1 major signing with them this year - and now the public has a *so what* attitude for all to see.

And that's the bottom line.

There's a difference here - when ESPN went on the air did they come back 6 months later and say "oh by the way any LIVE sporting events will cost extra"?
The NFL Network has no value to me without live coverage. It's like I'm paying for a car without the engine.

Also keep in mind that the NFL Network has been doing all their advertising claiming once you get the NFL Network you get these 8 wonderful games. It turns out this is completely false. There's really the NFL "history channel" without live games and "NFL Network Plus" with the live games.

No, what ESPN did was even worse. They got a handful of NFL games, jacked up their price, then eventually demanded carriage on the basic analog tier - otherwise the cableco would lose Disney and their local ABC.

There's really no NFL Network Plus, there's an NFL Network Minus. That is a short term solution for those cablecos that don't want to pony up for the new NFL Network. Those contracts won't be renewed, they'll either carry the channel or they won't.

ESPN just demanded that they be KEPT on the basic tier, where they have been from the beginning. Disney/ABC actually had some negotiating leverage, while the NFL does not. The cable companies did not want to lose ESPN, so they gave in. Now they did not put all of the Disney/ABC owned stations on basic tier. ESPN NEWS, ESPN Classics, ABC Family are all on digital on my cable system. I am sure I am missing some other Disney owned stations that are on digital tier. The NFL has every right to demand they put on the basic tier, but they have nothing scare the cable companies with. If the NFL loses out and cannot get more coverage, the 8 lives games will end up having to be put on a channel with more coverage. The NFL is not going to lose 600 to 800 million just to keep it on the NFLN. Remember that is what they are giving up in rights fees.

I think Comcast has something up its sleeve (Keeping NFL Network,running the 98 games (in HD even) AND moving NFL to the new Sports/Entertainment tier.,especially when there was a potential slot on analog to put it on (Analog channel 66 has been blank for the past 2 years in the Boston market and to my knowledge is not being used for any digital programming.)

All this for 8 games, I can't believe we have chatted about this for 35 pages. But when you really calculate it it really isn't about eight games. It is really about 4. Usually in december the NFL use to have thursday games anyway. So the turkey game is just one of the 4 games that would have been shown on free TV anyway on Sunday or Monday. ESPN or TNT would have had them also but the NFL had a free TV channel simulcast of their games in the local markets so it can get to the fans that the games really mattered to. So these are games that never happened before this year. Who really loses out? The local fan that his team ends up playing on the new thursday games. That is the biggest crime of all of this. The NFL wanted a piece of it's own pie by broadcasting games normally added to those huge contracts and this has turned out to be the biggest fiasco in TV history(my opinion). How the hell do you have companies pay x-amount for a network and tout up it's live coverage of these games but on game day y-amount needs to be added to see the live games? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard!! If the NFL thinks this is good business sense they are insane. The sunday ticket is good especially since it is exclusive to one company, but even that cost an arm and a leg to get. How many people switch for that DTV and actually didn't get it once they found out the price for all the games during one season? I have a friend who is sports all the time, but even he said hell no to the ST. "too expensive!".

No matter what happens with this network, it will be the NFL's greediness that will cost it a lot of money this year and years to come if they don't reduce their demands. They need to give true facts about viewership levels and stop quoting all the companies that carry the network, because it is obvious from the complaints here and other places. They are not showing the "LIVE" games everywhere "In less than three years, the NFL's 24/7 network has welcomed aboard 173 cable companies, including four of the five largest, reaching 40 million of the 111 million television households"

This is one thing that would have had me pissed off if they signed with TWC and then they asked for more money for the game, then even more for the game in HD!!

All this for 8 games, I can't believe we have chatted about this for 35 pages. But when you really calculate it it really isn't about eight games. It is really about 4.?

8 games is 8 games, not available anywhere else.

Who really loses out? The local fan that his team ends up playing on the new thursday games. That is the biggest crime of all of this.

No the local fan does not loose out because the local games are being shown on OTA free TV in the local market.

Thus the NFL has even less negotiation power.

This NFL thing is just like Sunday. Where I live I get to see the team I want to see about once or twice a year, so if NFLN or TWC wants to charge me more for a game on Thursday or Saturday with two teams that don't matter to me -- they both can go get ******. I thought I would really care but I kept up with the score of the game just like I do with a team I care about every Sunday -- on the Internet or the ESPN crawl. Not gonna pay extra for the Thur/Sat pack. Both NFLN and TWC lost me on this one -- no money from me for any deal you ever settle and I really don't care if you every do.

They are encouraging people to switch to DBS because NFL Network is available on DBS - what's so odd about that?

All networks want J6P to call and complain to force carriage. Funny that there's no outrage that ESPN, Viacom or Lifetime pulled the same thing and you're paying for them now - but the NFL is "greedy" for playing the game that the other networks and cablecos created. For anybody that rolls over for Limetime, but draws the line at the NFL Network - you are not the demographic to which football is meant to appeal.

I'm sure it's already been said, but ESPN has a TON more programming that almost any sports fan would be interested in compared to NFLN: college football/basketball, NBA, MLB, etc...given the amount of time I spend watching ESPN/ESPN2, and RSN's I'd be willing to pay 10 bucks or so a month if all were presented in HD all the time

All this for 8 games, I can't believe we have chatted about this for 35 pages. But when you really calculate it it really isn't about eight games. It is really about 4. Usually in december the NFL use to have thursday games anyway. So the turkey game is just one of the 4 games that would have been shown on free TV anyway on Sunday or Monday. ESPN or TNT would have had them also but the NFL had a free TV channel simulcast of their games in the local markets so it can get to the fans that the games really mattered to. So these are games that never happened before this year. Who really loses out? The local fan that his team ends up playing on the new thursday games. That is the biggest crime of all of this. The NFL wanted a piece of it's own pie by broadcasting games normally added to those huge contracts and this has turned out to be the biggest fiasco in TV history(my opinion). How the hell do you have companies pay x-amount for a network and tout up it's live coverage of these games but on game day y-amount needs to be added to see the live games? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard!! If the NFL thinks this is good business sense they are insane. The sunday ticket is good especially since it is exclusive to one company, but even that cost an arm and a leg to get. How many people switch for that DTV and actually didn't get it once they found out the price for all the games during one season? I have a friend who is sports all the time, but even he said hell no to the ST. "too expensive!".

No matter what happens with this network, it will be the NFL's greediness that will cost it a lot of money this year and years to come if they don't reduce their demands. They need to give true facts about viewership levels and stop quoting all the companies that carry the network, because it is obvious from the complaints here and other places. They are not showing the "LIVE" games everywhere "In less than three years, the NFL's 24/7 network has welcomed aboard 173 cable companies, including four of the five largest, reaching 40 million of the 111 million television households"

This is one thing that would have had me pissed off if they signed with TWC and then they asked for more money for the game, then even more for the game in HD!!
If you look at the cost per game for ST it's around a 1-2 dollars/game, about the same price per game as ESPN Gameplan, but the best bargain is MLB extra innings, since there's about 2000 games on the package through it the season it's only like 10 cents a game, too bad baseball is incredibly boring unless you're hammered and with friends

Cable Subscribers Aren’t Saying, ‘I Want My N.F.L.’
By Richard Sandomir The New York Times November 28, 2006

The NFL Network carried its first regular-season game on Thanksgiving night — Kansas City beat Denver, 19-10 — but the cable operators who have refused to show the channel did not bow to league power and enlist.

Time Warner, Cablevision and Charter are still saying no.

They did not feel pressured by the start of the NFL Network’s package of eight Thursday and Saturday night games. Time Warner Cable has 13.5 million subscribers, and only a handful protested by disconnecting their service.

“After the first game, we’re in the same position as we’re in before it,” said Landel C. Hobbs, the chief operating officer of Time Warner Cable.

There are no active negotiations, he added.

The NFL Network is available to 41 million cable and satellite subscribers. Its president, Steve Bornstein, is proud of that, but it is not the ubiquitous distribution he hopes for.

“I’m disappointed that fans of the N.F.L. were not able to access the game,” he said yesterday by telephone from Los Angeles. “We pride ourselves on being as available to as many people as possible.”

The problem for Time Warner, Cablevision and Charter is that the NFL Network is seeking 70 cents a subscriber, 50 cents more than it charged before it got the rights to carry eight games.

In seeking the widest possible distribution, Bornstein has run into the recalcitrant cable systems’ belief that the channel is too expensive or belongs on a digital sports tier with the likes of NBA TV, CSTV and the Tennis Channel.

With so much football out there, Hobbs said, a network offering eight games over five weeks (five Thursdays and three Saturdays) belongs on a sports tier.

Bornstein hates sports tiers and says his network is the “best product out there” for the most broadly available digital cable businesses, as opposed to the “thirteen iterations of the Discovery Channel on digital.”

Bornstein wants the most subscribers to maximize his revenues; he also needs to justify the league’s rejection of Comcast’s bid of $400 million a year to carry the games on its Versus network. He can’t maximize his audience on digital sports tiers because cable companies charge extra monthly fees for them.

Evidence of the league’s ardor is a lawsuit it filed against Comcast last month in Manhattan Supreme Court over the cable operator’s right to keep carrying the league’s channel on a sports tier, as it has done since 2004.

“We’re not familiar with a sports tier that’s worked,” Bornstein said.

The network is also in litigation with Charter.

With one game aired, the NFL Network looks as if it has begun to lose leverage against the cable operators. There are no reports of major fan groundswells demanding the channel — Bornstein said his office received “quite a few” complaints but would not say how many — that remind anyone of Yankees fans’ ire when Cablevision did not carry the YES Network in 2002.

Bornstein insisted that he had not lost any leverage, and he was hoping a tide of aggrieved fans would rise to demand that Time Warner, Cablevision and Charter make a deal, as 160 other cable operators have.

“We didn’t anticipate that we’d have everybody aboard by now,” he said. “We need our fans to speak up and petition their distributor to get us.”

But this isn’t some sort of “I Want My MTV” campaign; it is a negotiation between parties who are natural antagonists.

One of the NFL Network’s problems in provoking the disenfranchised, displaced and dissatisfied into demanding the NFL Network is that most of the potentially angry fans will see the games. A local broadcast station in the home markets for each game will carry the NFL Network feed. But fans outside those primary markets (say, Giants fans in Albany or Chiefs fans in Topeka) will not see those games on local stations.

Viewers who saw the Kansas City-Denver game heard Bryant Gumbel struggle in his first N.F.L. play-by-play stint. He sometimes hunted for the right words (too often saying a running back was “stacked up”), erroneously reported downs and yardage several times and rarely offered excitement in his voice. (Bornstein said Gumbel had the flu.)

Cris Collinsworth’s estimable analysis showed the value of being an N.F.L. game commentator in the past and being on studio programs since the 1990s. Gumbel, who is known mostly as the co-host of “Today,” is also the host of “Real Sports” on HBO, but he had never called a professional football game.

Fans who saw Thursday’s game also noticed an obtrusive score strip that hung too low from the top of the screen, a first-down line that was shown erratically, and the pleasant emergence of Marshall Faulk, an analyst on the pregame program “Total Access.” Faulk is a smart voice who made his colleagues Deion Sanders, whose act grew tired on CBS, and Steve Mariucci, a former N.F.L. coach, shrink in significance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/sports/football/28sandomir.html

Much to my surprise, the NFL answered my complaint about not being able to see the live games on WOW cable (Note: WOW carries the NFL Network and NFL Network HD just not the live games):


Thank you for taking the time to write in and voice your concern. When we reached an agreement with WOW we did not have the rights to air live NFL games. It is typical in the cable industry that a network may reserve the right to seek additional fees if it acquires particularly expensive and valuable programming. Since we acquired the game package and since NFL games are consistently the highest-rated programs on cable television, NFL Network has asked your cable company to incur an additional cost to carry the games. This cost will primarily be used to cover expenses in bringing these game telecasts to you, the viewer. While upwards of 160 other cable operators have recognized the importance of NFL games to their customers and agreed to these terms, your cable operator has elected not to carry the games under these circumstances. Even after we offered several minutes of advertising time on our channel during our games, where they can sell commercials and keep all the revenue, they determined that these games would not be important enough to their customers to add them to the lineup. It is important to know that 160 cable companies carry the NFL Network and the games without charging extra for it. If they can carry the channel and do not pass along costs then WOW can too. We offered WOW the NFL Network and games for a year for just the cost of one movie ticket per subscriber. When we presented WOW with the option to carry the games they could have accepted the agreement on terms that 160 cable providers have accepted as fair, or let their customers know of their choice to not offer the games to you in time for you to do something about it. WOW chose to do neither. They made this decision in May and chose not to tell you that you would be missing out. We wish this was not the case, but it is your cable company who has put you in this position and we can not force them to carry our games. I hope this explains things better.


"For just the cost of one movie ticket per subscriber" :rolleyes:

I am not sure why what the NFL is doing is considered legal. They make a agreement with a cable company to broadcast there station and then they withold content when the cable company refuses to pay more then the active contract specifies. Isn't this a sort of extortion. Shouldn't the cable companies being suing the NFL for breach of contract?

TV Sports
NFL Net Scores With Live Game
By Jon Lafayette Television Week November 28, 2006

Despite not being carried by several major cable operators, the NFL Network's first live game telecast was the most-watched program on cable Thanksgiving night, attracting 4.2 million viewers.

The game, which pitted the Denver Broncos against the Kansas City Chiefs, drew a 6.8 rating in its coverage area, according to preliminary figures from Nielsen Media Research. NFL Network expects that number to increase when numbers from Denver and Kansas City are fully integrated.

NFL Network said its postgame show drew a 3.1 rating, making it the second-most-watched show on cable that night. The pre-game show ranked fifth.

Cable operators including Time Warner Cable and Cablevision have balked at carrying the NFL Network because of its cost and its demand that it be on a basic or digital basic tier rather than a sports tier.

Meanwhile, Sunday's game between the Chicago Bears and the New England Patriots on Fox drew a 15.4 national rating and 24.1 million viewers, making it the most-watched NFL game of the season and the most-watched sporting event on television since the Olympics.

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11135

Much to my surprise, the NFL answered my complaint about not being able to see the live games on WOW cable <snip>

We wish this was not the case, but it is your cable company who has put you in this position and we can not force them to carry our games. I hope this explains things better.


Oh please...... Who took out the 8 games from the packages offered to networks to put on a cable channel with virtually no carriage - and the existing contracts would not cover the games - thus when decided there was 0 carriage.

The management has more brain damage from steroid use then the players.

IMO, longterm, if the NFL is successful with this venture, don't expect a ST Package for a few hundred dollars. EVERY GAME will eventually become PPV for big bucks over the next 20 years - several times more than a movie ticket per game.

One holdout down ??? to go:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6395370.html?display=Breaking+News

NFL Network Scores Insight Deal

By Steve Donohue 11/29/2006 12:01:00 AM

Just six days after carrying its first live pro football game, NFL Network announced an deal with Insight Communications at midnight this morning which will see the eighth largest cable distributor carry the network’s remaining Thursday and Saturday night NFL games.

While Michael Willner’s Insight was one of the first operators to agree to carry NFL Network – striking a deal in March 2004 to put the network on its digital basic tier – the company had resisted paying a surcharge that would give it rights to carry the network’s prized football games.

Insight didn’t distribute NFL Network’s Kansas City Chiefs – Denver Broncos premiere game Thanksgiving night. While NFL Network has cut agreements with DirecTV, EchoStar, Comcast and about 190 other distributors, top cable operators Time Warner Cable, Charter Communications and Cablevision Systems haven’t agreed to carry the network.

Insight didn’t disclose the terms of the agreement. NFL Network debuted in November 2003, initially charging affiliates license fees of 20 cents to 25 cents monthly per subscriber.

After the NFL opted in January to distribute an eight-game, late-season packages on its own network, rather than selling the games to Comcast, News Corp., ESPN and other potential bidders, NFL Network began pitching affiliates monthly rates of 70 cents to 90 cents per subscriber to carry the channel.

NFL Network posted a 6.8 Nielsen Media Research rating for Thursday’s Chiefs-Broncos game, which was available in only 40 million cable and satellite homes.

President Steve Bornstein said last Tuesday that he expected consumers would pressure local operators to carry the network after the game. “Everybody’s taking a wait and see attitude,” Bornstein said.

President Steve Bornstein said last Tuesday that he expected consumers would pressure local operators to carry the network after the game. “Everybody’s taking a wait and see attitude,” Bornstein said.

President Steve Bornstein should expect a class action lawsuit from the cable customers like me who thought we paid for a full service NFL Network with live games and did not get it. Be careful what you wish for, NFLN.

Just sayin'

Let me throw out a theory for the amateur lawyer types.

1. NFL Network from Day 1 heavily advertises "you want NFLN on your cable system to get these 8 games"
2. I lobby my cable company to get NFLN, and they do. Great. I figure I'm all set.
3. I see other cablecos like TWC lose NFLN at a date certain because no deal is made. NFLN does much hype and advertising about how those people are going to miss these 8 games. They run scrolls before the cutoff promoting this.
4. On the date of the first live game, my cable system (WOW) is prohibited from showing the live game. Do I have an implied contract with the NFLN to show this game, or my cable company WOW, or both?
5. During this whole timeline, there is no indication to the consumer that there is an NFLN "Lite" without live games, and a full service NFLN. NFLN never says anything to us about calling our cable companies to request "live" games until after the Thursday night debut debacle.

I say the NFLN had an implied contract with me to show the live games, and breached said contract Thursday night.

Have at it.

Networks, programming, fees and contracts are always changing. I'm sure WOW has a clause in their customer agreement that states that the offering can change at any time with no notice. Your contract is with your cable company, not the NFL Network.

If your cable company wanted to play hardball, they'd yank NFLN like E* did with OLN when Comcast withheld the NHL games from the E* feed. They could certainly argue that by advertising the live NFL games on NFLN to their (WOW) customers, they've created a situation where a game-less feed will cause confusion (> complaints > customer service issues > damages) with their customer base. That would cut off the ~$0.25 per sub they are currently paying.

Time Warner, Cablevision and Charter are still saying no.

Time Warner Cable has 13.5 million subscribers, and only a handful protested by disconnecting their service.

“After the first game, we’re in the same position as we’re in before it,” said Landel C. Hobbs, the chief operating officer of Time Warner Cable.

There are no active negotiations, he added.


TWC would say this even if there were millions of complaints. Certainly the NFL Network talking heads are not blameless here, but Time Warner is not known for its customer focus and honesty. And, obviously, they could care less about their subs leaving for satellite. All of this is crap from TWC Execs is for (ignorant) public consumption. Sad to say, most of TWC's customers seem to believe this garbage.

President Steve Bornstein should expect a class action lawsuit from the cable customers like me who thought we paid for a full service NFL Network with live games and did not get it. Be careful what you wish for, NFLN.

Just sayin'

Let me throw out a theory for the amateur lawyer types.

1. NFL Network from Day 1 heavily advertises "you want NFLN on your cable system to get these 8 games"
2. I lobby my cable company to get NFLN, and they do. Great. I figure I'm all set.
3. I see other cablecos like TWC lose NFLN at a date certain because no deal is made. NFLN does much hype and advertising about how those people are going to miss these 8 games. They run scrolls before the cutoff promoting this.
4. On the date of the first live game, my cable system (WOW) is prohibited from showing the live game. Do I have an implied contract with the NFLN to show this game, or my cable company WOW, or both?
5. During this whole timeline, there is no indication to the consumer that there is an NFLN "Lite" without live games, and a full service NFLN. NFLN never says anything to us about calling our cable companies to request "live" games until after the Thursday night debut debacle.

I say the NFLN had an implied contract with me to show the live games, and breached said contract Thursday night.

Have at it.

There are plenty of Law Firms that only do "ambulance chasing" class action suits. In virtually every case, they get the cash while consumers get "a NFL T Shirt of their favorite team".

No doubt the NFL owners which make up the NFL have DEEP pockets, so I am sure some ambulance chaser would be happy to start this - however they need someone such as yourself to contact them and initiate a claim - as most cannot contact you directly.

That said, it clearly should happen. Look at the HDLITE with Directv lawsuit.

I would be willing to go into a class action lawsuit. This is bs!! All damn year I was told by NFL Network that I will be able to watch these 8 games. And if I wanted to watch them all I had to do was get NFL Network. They lied on their end of the bargin. That right there is a lawsuit waiting to happen. I mean the cable companys could even get in it. I mean geez how can u say one thing then do another. That's bs!!

I am in!!!

I sign it right now.

Doesn't matter - they don't expect to get all the games.

The die hard fans that MUST HAVE EVERY GAME already know you can get all the games on D* ST if you pay for them.

So much for the NFL's strategy.

This is very true. Before Sunday ticket I was never able to view every game in the NFL. We got a double header on one network plus a single game on the other, plus the night game ESPN and then Monday Night Football on ABC. And if there were holiday games we could see those too.

By adding a 3rd game on Thanksgiving night, they are showing a game I wouldn't normally see anyway even if it was on Sunday. Its really no big deal if I can't get it.

The die hard will have Sunday Ticket or go to sports bars to watch their team.

My dad has comcast digital cable and we had to add a digital sports tier for an extra $5 to see NFL network. Its worth it to him.

I now have Direct TV at home with the Sunday Ticket package. But my buddy pays for the whole thing to watch football. If it were me, it'd be just the basic D* Total Choice package.

I'm not die hard enough to pay an extra $280 for football.

By adding a 3rd game on Thanksgiving night, they are showing a game I wouldn't normally see anyway even if it was on Sunday. Its really no big deal if I can't get it.




This is not true. The 8-game NFL-N package was taken from the games that used to air on nationally on FOX, CBS, and ESPN on Saturdays late in the season (after college football reg season ended).

So actually, the NFL did take away (if you don't have NFL-N) 8 games that you would have normally seen.

I would be willing to go into a class action lawsuit. This is bs!! All damn year I was told by NFL Network that I will be able to watch these 8 games. And if I wanted to watch them all I had to do was get NFL Network. They lied on their end of the bargin. That right there is a lawsuit waiting to happen. I mean the cable companys could even get in it. I mean geez how can u say one thing then do another. That's bs!!

I am in!!!

I sign it right now.


I would be interested to join the class action lawsuit too just to anger the NFL. I was excited when I found out the NFL Network HD would televise 8 games. Now I do not even get to watch them. What good is the NFL Network then? Watching replays of games doesn't do much for me. If I want analysis I can watch ESPN or ESPN News or even Fox Sports. I blame the NFL and my cable provider WOW for this. I blame the NFL for being greedy and charging the cable providers to much to put the game on the air. I really think the NFL is srewing this up though. They could have had more viewers tonight which should equal for revenue for commercials right? I blame WOW and other cable companies for being dumb enough to add the NFL Network as a channel if it cannot show any live games. It is a great way to anger your customers. I planned on keeping WOW until the end of the NFL season since my local Comcast didn't have NFL Network HD. I may switch right away since Comcast just added a bunch of HD channels to their lineup.

This is not true. The 8-game NFL-N package was taken from the games that used to air on nationally on FOX, CBS, and ESPN on Saturdays late in the season (after college football reg season ended).

So actually, the NFL did take away (if you don't have NFL-N) 8 games that you would have normally seen

OK, you make good points.

I just looked at the schedule and since the 49ers and Raiders are in two of the games, they'll be broadcast locally anyway so the Bay Area would get cheated out of 6 games. Of course I don't like those two teams, but it means there will be better games on the Sundays they aren't playing on the local feeds.

My favorite team isn't on the NFL network schedule at all, so it wouldn't be a big loss.

There's so much NFL football on now that I don't watch most of the Sunday and Monday night games. They're just not that compelling and we have too many other options on TV.

I think the NFL overestimated their value on this one.

This is not true. The 8-game NFL-N package was taken from the games that used to air on nationally on FOX, CBS, and ESPN on Saturdays late in the season (after college football reg season ended).

So actually, the NFL did take away (if you don't have NFL-N) 8 games that you would have normally seen.

the nfl didnt take anything away. if your cable company decided not to subscribe to espn is it the nfl's fault? no. its no different in this case. the cable company is too cheap and also pissed because they dont get sunday ticket and that is the source of the problem.

Why are people calling the cable company cheap if the NFL network started charging more once they decided to broadcast games? Shouldn't the NFL be honoring the original deal?

The NFL network only broadcast 8 games a year. That's 24 total hours of live sports for 12 months. Why would a cable company want that on their basic package? ESPN shows more live sports than that in a week. NFL Network is basically NFL Classic the rest of the time.

Oh, I could definitely see this as payback for not offering the Sunday Ticket to cable networks.

the nfl didnt take anything away. if your cable company decided not to subscribe to espn is it the nfl's fault? no. its no different in this case. the cable company is too cheap and also pissed because they dont get sunday ticket and that is the source of the problem.


If the NFL asks for an amount that doesn't represent close to the value of the product (8 games) they are offering, then yes, it is the NFL's fault. In the marketplace, just because a company or individual chooses not to purchase a product, that does not automatically make one cheap.

Look at Comcast. They have NFL. They have the games. They have the games in HD. NFL: is on a sports tier (but is also on Digital plus,and GET this the SPANISH Tier) (In Boston it is) They offered $400 Million for one year of games on Verses. NFL said no thank you.

Do not be surprised if the 2008 SUPER BOWL is on NFL Network only!

They don't have the games in HD on my Comcast.

They don't have the games in HD on my Comcast.

What area are you at? In many areas the games may pre-empt INHD programming.

Why are people calling the cable company cheap if the NFL network started charging more once they decided to broadcast games? Shouldn't the NFL be honoring the original deal?

The NFL network only broadcast 8 games a year. That's 24 total hours of live sports for 12 months. Why would a cable company want that on their basic package? ESPN shows more live sports than that in a week. NFL Network is basically NFL Classic the rest of the time.

Oh, I could definitely see this as payback for not offering the Sunday Ticket to cable networks.

THAT is what I see is up their sleeve for Comcast.

If the NFL asks for an amount that doesn't represent close to the value of the product (8 games) they are offering, then yes, it is the NFL's fault. In the marketplace, just because a company or individual chooses not to purchase a product, that does not automatically make one cheap.

the nfl isnt going to give away their product. why is it that only a couple of cable providers have a problem? neither satellite company has a problem with the price.

What area are you at? In many areas the games may pre-empt INHD programming.

I'm in the Denver market, and there's no NFL Network in HD for the games. Of course, if the games were on network TV as they always were, we'd get them in HD here.

Considering the difficulties with the cablecos and Gumbel and Collinsworth as announcers, the NFL didn't do fans any favors with their NFL Network package this year.

since when are thursday night games on network tv?

What area are you at? In many areas the games may pre-empt INHD programming.

Arlington, VA

It didn't pre-empt even though the guide data actually showed the game being on INHD2.

since when are thursday night games on network tv?


Again, these games that are airing on Thursday and Saturday nights were on network TV (at least 6 of the 8; 1-2 were on ESPN) in the past - Saturdays late in the season. They used those games to create a new package.

Look at Comcast. They have NFL. They have the games. They have the games in HD. NFL: is on a sports tier (but is also on Digital plus,and GET this the SPANISH Tier) (In Boston it is) They offered $400 Million for one year of games on Verses. NFL said no thank you.

Do not be surprised if the 2008 SUPER BOWL is on NFL Network only!
That will never happen, I shouldn't say never because look at the NBA, the complete playoffs are on cable. Even then it is on a network that is broadcast on every cable/sat system and reaches more viewers then the NFLN ever will. but either way we are safe untill 2011 anyway! The contracts were just signed. It would be a breach of contract with the networks if they tried that.

Do not be surprised if the 2008 SUPER BOWL is on NFL Network only!I said this before and I'll say it again -- the NFL isn't that stupid.

I said this before and I'll say it again -- the NFL isn't that stupid.

Very prophetic of you. The NFL-- stupid? Uh, I don't think so. It's only one of the most successful multi-billion dollar American businesses that exists today-- with a growth curve that's through the roof, especially with the most prized TV demographic-- affluent, 25-54 yr old males. That's why it's so foolish for cable companies like TWC (one of the worst run businesses) to take their current position. 70 cents/subscriber? That's a fraction of what a typical annual increase is for TWC. Of course, any new channel addition (notice there have been none in the past several years for TWC) would just eat into the enormous profit that Time Warner is using from its cable business to funnel to the other money-sucking parts of their conglomerate (Warner Bros, AOL, Atlanta Braves ... take your pick). What TWC really wants is to put ithe NFL Network into a sports tier with a bunch of other worthless channels (Tennis Channel, CSTV, NBA TV, etc) that currently costs about $2.95 a month-- so that they can increase that to about $10 a month. So, a 70 cent channel will give them about a $6 profit per subscriber. Get it?

The good news is that land-based competition is on the way. And, the resulting defectors combined with those who have already left for satellite, may finally threaten the pseudo local cable TV monopolies. Right now, the cable providers could care less about the relatively small number of subscribers that have left for satellite. They write that off as a miscellaneous busiess expense.

Even the idiots in Washington have noticed that cable TV rates have risen geometrically in unspoken collusion with D* and E* (think Coke v. Pepsi). Usually, when the federal government gets involved, things get even more screwed up-- but, in this case, let's hope that they get out of the way and let good 'ol capitalism take over.

It's only one of the most successful multi-billion dollar American businesses that exists today, especially with the most prized TV demographic-- affluent, 25-54 yr old males. What TWC really wants is to put ithe NFL Network into a sports tier with a bunch of other worthless channels (Tennis Channel, CSTV, NBA TV, etc) that currently costs about $2.95 a month-- so that they can increase that to about $10 a month. It would be interesting if NFL Network allowed TWC and Comcast to do a 'trial' by adding the NFL Network to a sports tier and see how many people jump at it. At this point, their campaign to get customers to demand carraige has failed... The average customer could care less. I'll watch a game or two, off and on, this afternoon, but most likely it will be on one of my local channels. I even have NFL Network (including the HD channel) available to me. If those games weren't on, I could care less. *I* am a fairly typical customer too. The die-hard football lovers would pay for the add'l tier if it were available. I would NEVER. I mean, if Dish Network offered me a discount to drop the multiple ESPN channels, I'd strongly consider it.

I agree that the NFL's campaign has failed. Its now down to six games and a couple of college bowl games most people have never heard of.

As a Bengals fan living 40 minutes north of Cincinnati in Dayton (the 60th or so largest market in the country), the NFL denied local carriage of the Bengals game and, of course, the NFLN was not on the only cable system in town -- Time Warner Cable. People who really wanted to watch the game went out to bars or a friend's house. Didn't hear any other complaining -- the local papers just stated the facts of non-carriage and did not quote any outraged fans.

TWC will wait till next year. Perhaps the NFL will come to its senses and realize it can either charge for the station and have it on the sports tier or get the rates of any other network that is ranked 30th or so in the number of viewers.

Hey, wait a minute. There's a tennis channel?

I have the sports tier on TW now and like it. But it is only about $2.50 a month. I will be interested to see if the NFLN ever ends up there what the price might be. It has a bunch of out of market college sports and being from "up north" and now living "down south" I do get to see a lot of college hockey. If TW tries to make a buck on the tier then I don't know what I might do. BTW you won't see Rutgers v. KState or Minn v. Texas Tech this bowl season unless you have the NFLN -- that is where those two games are.

Comcast's Sports tier is $6.95 a month ($4 if you have Digital Platinum) They merged it with their Premiere pack so one gets 15 channels.

NFL is still part of digital plus (But I have the SnE pack anyway just in case,and because this is where HDNEt is supposed to be)

It's amazing how much misinformation is out there on this topic.

The NFL will NEVER cave on this point, there's no reason to, they don't have to have the revenue, this is a long term issue for them. As the owner of the Pats, Bob Kraft told the Wall Street Journal, "I don't think we should sell our soul for a bowl of porridge in the short run."

While I'm not suggesting that the NFL is blameless here, the idea that Time Warner is trying to do the "right thing" by its customers is laughable.

Make no mistake about what this is about for Time Warner, instead of just adopting the channel and passing the 40 to 45 cents a month that the NFL Network is likely willing to accept according to industry analysts (down from initial request of 80 cents a month opening the negotiation), they want to add it to the sports tier. But not because they only want people who want it badly enough to pay for it and save money for everyone else LOL. It's because by adding it to the sports tier, they can not only raise the price of the sports tier, but sell a lot more of them--they sell very few now. There's nothing as desirable as an NFL game on that package.

For people who want this channel and take the sports tier, you'd not only have to pay the extra couple of dollars a month the NFL would demand, but also another $2-3 a month to Time Warner for the other worthless channels in the sports tier that you don't want (and I actually have it now b/c it has some college football games, but no one else does). Time Warner pockets some of the higher price of the sports package they can charge, as well as the profit margin on the rest of the channels on the sports tier, multiplied by a LOT more subscribers to the sports tier just by adding NFLN to it. They know that hardcore fans will pay whatever they charge, so they can fleece them if they add the channel. They would finally have something that would be "must see" on the sports tier and drive people to take it.

In short, this is about Time Warner wanting to make a profit from their customers by doing nothing but adding the network. While I have no issue with them earning a profit, the way they are attempting to portray themselves--as some sort of defender of their customers--is an insult. The dispute is about BOTH sides making more money.

The difference, and why all the blame falls on Time Warner for me, is that since it's the NFL's product, they are the rightful party to profit from the bulk of it. Time Warner is not spending any material amount of money, time or energy in adding the channel, but they want to make money off of me for it anyway. Believe me, I've seen the financials and my bill, the monopoly that is Time Warner is making PLENTY off of me.

And the great irony in all of this, is that Time Warner played a big role in getting these 8 NFL games moved to the Network. When the NFL was selling its package of games, they were trying to decide whether to place them on NFLN or sell them to a network or cable channel. And for perspective, ESPN is paying $1.1 billion a year to air 16 games on Monday night EACH of the next 8 years, so the games had a lot of value. However, the NFL was having trouble getting carriage for NFLN and Dick Parsons, the CEO of Time Warner, told them in no uncertain times that TW would not carry NFLN unless they added live games. So partly by Time Warner's urging, the games are now on NFLN, and they still won't carry them. Thanks Dick!

But the bottom line is that NFL gave up something like $400 or $500 million per year for these 8 games, they are not going to give in here. They will negotiate the monthly fee, but not the sports tier issue.

If Time Warner really cared about the cost to customers, they'd drop this condition of theirs designed to sell more sports tiers at high prices, and negotiate the best possible price for the channel. Since the NFL really wants to get on basic cable and wide carriage, they could probably negotiate a pretty good deal, but that won't even be discussed until they change on the sports tier issue. Instead, they just quote the initial price request from the NFL in all their PR spin, as if that is the issue here, that they are being reasonable and representing customers...that would be the day!!

Sorry for the rambling, but I'm very frustrated by this issue. And since Time Warner is a monopoly in NYC (few buildings can get satellite), I have NO options.

It's amazing how much misinformation is out there on this topic.

The NFL will NEVER cave on this point, there's no reason to, they don't have to have the revenue, this is a long term issue for them. As the owner of the Pats, Bob Kraft told the Wall Street Journal, "I don't think we should sell our soul for a bowl of porridge in the short run."

While I'm not suggesting that the NFL is blameless here, the idea that Time Warner is trying to do the "right thing" by its customers is laughable.

Make no mistake about what this is about for Time Warner, instead of just adopting the channel and passing the 40 to 45 cents a month that the NFL Network is likely willing to accept according to industry analysts (down from initial request of 80 cents a month opening the negotiation), they want to add it to the sports tier. But not because they only want people who want it badly enough to pay for it and save money for everyone else LOL. It's because by adding it to the sports tier, they can not only raise the price of the sports tier, but sell a lot more of them--they sell very few now. There's nothing as desirable as an NFL game on that package.

For people who want this channel and take the sports tier, you'd not only have to pay the extra couple of dollars a month the NFL would demand, but also another $2-3 a month to Time Warner for the other worthless channels in the sports tier that you don't want (and I actually have it now b/c it has some college football games, but no one else does). Time Warner pockets some of the higher price of the sports package they can charge, as well as the profit margin on the rest of the channels on the sports tier, multiplied by a LOT more subscribers to the sports tier just by adding NFLN to it. They know that hardcore fans will pay whatever they charge, so they can fleece them if they add the channel. They would finally have something that would be "must see" on the sports tier and drive people to take it.

In short, this is about Time Warner wanting to make a profit from their customers by doing nothing but adding the network. While I have no issue with them earning a profit, the way they are attempting to portray themselves--as some sort of defender of their customers--is an insult. The dispute is about BOTH sides making more money.

The difference, and why all the blame falls on Time Warner for me, is that since it's the NFL's product, they are the rightful party to profit from the bulk of it. Time Warner is not spending any material amount of money, time or energy in adding the channel, but they want to make money off of me for it anyway. Believe me, I've seen the financials and my bill, the monopoly that is Time Warner is making PLENTY off of me.

And the great irony in all of this, is that Time Warner played a big role in getting these 8 NFL games moved to the Network. When the NFL was selling its package of games, they were trying to decide whether to place them on NFLN or sell them to a network or cable channel. And for perspective, ESPN is paying $1.1 billion a year to air 16 games on Monday night EACH of the next 8 years, so the games had a lot of value. However, the NFL was having trouble getting carriage for NFLN and Dick Parsons, the CEO of Time Warner, told them in no uncertain times that TW would not carry NFLN unless they added live games. So partly by Time Warner's urging, the games are now on NFLN, and they still won't carry them. Thanks Dick!

But the bottom line is that NFL gave up something like $400 or $500 million per year for these 8 games, they are not going to give in here. They will negotiate the monthly fee, but not the sports tier issue.

If Time Warner really cared about the cost to customers, they'd drop this condition of theirs designed to sell more sports tiers at high prices, and negotiate the best possible price for the channel. Since the NFL really wants to get on basic cable and wide carriage, they could probably negotiate a pretty good deal, but that won't even be discussed until they change on the sports tier issue. Instead, they just quote the initial price request from the NFL in all their PR spin, as if that is the issue here, that they are being reasonable and representing customers...that would be the day!!

Sorry for the rambling, but I'm very frustrated by this issue. And since Time Warner is a monopoly in NYC (few buildings can get satellite), I have NO options.

You're exactly right. I've said the same things in many posts and I get bashed by the ignorant Time Warner apologists. Get ready--the NFL haters will call you names.

Instead, they just quote the initial price request from the NFL in all their PR spin, as if that is the issue here, that they are being reasonable and representing customers...that would be the day!!

Sorry for the rambling, but I'm very frustrated by this issue. And since Time Warner is a monopoly in NYC (few buildings can get satellite), I have NO options.

Why don't you email Fred Dressler (fred.dressler@twcable.com) and ask him to respond? He's retiring on 12/31, so he'll probably ignore it. If he does respond, you'll hear the same old tired garbage that he and the COO (Hobbs) have been shoveling out for years. And, most of the head in the sand subscribers lap it up like puppies. We've been hearing for over 2 years how "close" they were to ESPN2HD ... all the while, Comcast has added it and 8 other national HD channels-- Cox just added ESPN2HD this week as well.

I don't know about you, but I just got a notice about price increases for 2007. Of course, there is no indication that any new programming is on the way. The thing is, they don't care about all those who are switching to satellite. It's such a small number (since many have no choice or don't want to deal with the inconvenience), it's just ignored.

The realy problem is you have granted cable companies a monopoly. There is no reason that they should not be subjected to local regulation. I am all for al-carte programing. The technology is in place and it should be regulated into use. Its not like they have to put a filter on the line now, they just tell the cable box to not tune in certain channels.

Make no mistake about what this is about for Time Warner, instead of just adopting the channel and passing the 40 to 45 cents a month that the NFL Network is likely willing to accept according to industry analysts (down from initial request of 80 cents a month opening the negotiation), they want to add it to the sports tier. But not because they only want people who want it badly enough to pay for it and save money for everyone else LOL. It's because by adding it to the sports tier, they can not only raise the price of the sports tier, but sell a lot more of them--they sell very few now. There's nothing as desirable as an NFL game on that package.
Makes complete sense to me. I guess I'm a TWC apologist.

I don't think the cable companies should budge an inch for the NFL after they granted exclusivity for Season Pass to D*. If you just HAVE to have every NFL game, you WILL find a way to receive D*.

You seem to be implying that Cable never had a chance to bid for the NFL:ST ?

That's not true. If they came up with the cash, they'd be the one with an exclusive contract. They had their chance.

Look at how Comcast keeps DBS away from their Philadelphia SportsNet, if you want to see how righteous Cable can be.

How can someone say cable companies are a monopoly, when most everyone can get Satellite? Just cause it comes through a wire and not a dish, does not mean it is a monopoly. Cable and Satellite provide the same service.

You seem to be implying that Cable never had a chance to bid for the NFL:ST ?

That's not true. If they came up with the cash, they'd be the one with an exclusive contract. They had their chance.

Look at how Comcast keeps DBS away from their Philadelphia SportsNet, if you want to see how righteous Cable can be.
I'm against exclusivity period. Whether its NFL ST, INHD, or RSNs.

Having options creates competition: consumers benefit. Exclusivity eliminates competition: consumers suffer.

For NFL diehards, D* is the only option. The cable COs know that there is nothing they can do to change this. I'm curious why some feel they NEED NFL network but not Sunday Ticket?

(I have access to NFL Network on D* and E* and it simply is not compelling aside from the live games...unless you just love the cheerleading challenges:rolleyes:).

I'm sure we've beaten this to death. The bottom line for me is: the sports tier allows people to subscribe during the NFL season and cancel off season; making all subscribers pay for this channel for the entire year (even just $.50/m) only benefits NFL (not the cable COs or the consumers).

If the NFL cared about the fans, then would open up Sunday Ticket to everyone, not just a pay me 1 billion for the right to carry it on your system. Offer to everyone and create deal where the cable company and the NFL get a percentage from those who subscribe to the service. Right now if only 500,000 of Directv's customers subscribe to the service, the NFL still gets all its money. The facts are is that Directv has raised it rates ALLsubscribers, not just ST subscribers, to help cover the cost of the package.

How can someone say cable companies are a monopoly, when most everyone can get Satellite? Just cause it comes through a wire and not a dish, does not mean it is a monopoly. Cable and Satellite provide the same service.


If you live in city or densely populated area, there is a good chance are you can't get satellite. I have a balcony, face due south, am on the 13th floor but don't have a LOS to the satellites because there is a 20-story buidling across the street. I'd venture to say that less than 20% of my building could get satellite (and only half that is DirecTV). You'll find a similar pattern for high rises in all densely populated areas.

The fact is cable has a monopoly over a sizeable segment of the population.

If the NFL cared about the fans, then would open up Sunday Ticket to everyone, not just a pay me 1 billion for the right to carry it on your system. Offer to everyone and create deal where the cable company and the NFL get a percentage from those who subscribe to the service. Right now if only 500,000 of Directv's customers subscribe to the service, the NFL still gets all its money. The facts are is that Directv has raised it rates ALLsubscribers, not just ST subscribers, to help cover the cost of the package.



Exactly. I find it hard to believe that the NFL couldn't make more money if they did non-exclusive deals, like all the other sports do. Hell, I'd be willing to pay $500 for ST if I only had access.

Well then you should be complaining that Directv has not put up a satellite so you could have it. It seems they did not think of all the customers by limiting who could get it.

Exactly. I find it hard to believe that the NFL couldn't make more money if they did non-exclusive deals, like all the other sports do. Hell, I'd be willing to pay $500 for ST if I only had access.

On the other hand, I find it hard to believe the NFL didn't do exhaustive studies to find out exactly how much money it could make off the extra package.

And the NFL realized were it easily available to virutall all TV households -- via cable systems, for example -- the broadcast networks would pay a far lower price for their packages. And that would also cause the price of the ESPN package to drop.

There are few entities better than the NFL in their ability to wring every last dollar out of each negotiation. If you truly believe they left even a dime on the table, I will simply have to emphatically disagree with you.

If the NFL cared about the fans, then would open up Sunday Ticket to everyone, not just a pay me 1 billion for the right to carry it on your system. Offer to everyone and create deal where the cable company and the NFL get a percentage from those who subscribe to the service. Right now if only 500,000 of Directv's customers subscribe to the service, the NFL still gets all its money. The facts are is that Directv has raised it rates ALLsubscribers, not just ST subscribers, to help cover the cost of the package.

Actually, DirecTV says there are close to two million ST subs. And it has always said that the cost of NFL ST is not borne by those who do not subscribe. The financial reports it files quarterly with the SEC seem to validate that.

But if it DID charge all 15 million plus subs for NFL ST, the bill would come to about $47 a sub per year to cover the $700 million a year tab.

And even if you were right on "the facts"(and you are not) can you explain why the average DirecTV customer still pays far less than the average TWC, Comcast or Cox cable subscriber for TV service?

A better analogy is how cable companies for years have been jacking their rates to all subscribers at far higher than cost of living rates to pay for expensive phone and internet upgrades -- which have nothing to do with TV service.

On the other hand, I find it hard to believe the NFL didn't do exhaustive studies to find out exactly how much money it could make off the extra package.

And the NFL realized were it easily available to virutall all TV households -- via cable systems, for example -- the broadcast networks would pay a far lower price for their packages. And that would also cause the price of the ESPN package to drop.

There are few entities better than the NFL in their ability to wring every last dollar out of each negotiation. If you truly believe they left even a dime on the table, I will simply have to emphatically disagree with you.


The could be the case, but I also wonder if there are shenanigans since FOX and DirecTV are both Murdoch-owned. I have to think that had something to do with all this. The NFL has historically kept the supply of its product restricted. Not a very fan-friendly league.

I don't see why the ESPN or NBC packages would drop in value. The FOX and CBS packages would be effected because of the flip-around factor with ST - the viewer can avoid commercials. There is no other game to flip to in the SNF and MNF slots.

And even if you were right on "the facts"(and you are not) can you explain why the average DirecTV customer still pays far less than the average TWC, Comcast or Cox cable subscriber for TV service?

A better analogy is how cable companies for years have been jacking their rates to all subscribers at far higher than cost of living rates to pay for expensive phone and internet upgrades -- which have nothing to do with TV service.


One reason I mentioned before. Pretty much anyone who can get satellite has a choice - at least 2 sat companies and almost always at least 1 cable company. When you have choice (greater supply), you will tend to play less for a product.

There are millions who do not have choice based on their location - 1 cable company only. Those people will tend to pay more, unless they call their cable company and lie and claim to be bolting for satellite to get some kind of retention deal.

This explains part of it.

I live in a condo with no exclusive use area, under FCC regs I cannot have a dish. I would if I could. I serve on the HOA Board and we have been round and round on this one. Also the dish deal goes back to a previous post about direction and buildings and trees, etc so not all of us can just put up a dish. We are stuck until Verizon shows up!

Well you can always move. Not sure you can claim a monopoly because you choose to live where you cannot set up a dish. You did have a choice, you made a choice to live where you do.

We are seriously considering moving for several reasons and TWC is definitely on the list of reasons. Part of the problem is when we moved here 8+ years ago most of this stuff that TWC won't offer was not around. So the cable offerings were decent. TWC has not kept up nor do they seem to want to keep up. Bottom line is they just plain cost more and offer less. They just raised their rates in this area $4 a month starting in Jan. and are offering nothing in return but they won't add the NFLN for 50 cents a pop or whatever it is.

Actually, DirecTV says there are close to two million ST subs. And it has always said that the cost of NFL ST is not borne by those who do not subscribe. The financial reports it files quarterly with the SEC seem to validate that.

But if it DID charge all 15 million plus subs for NFL ST, the bill would come to about $47 a sub per year to cover the $700 million a year tab.

And even if you were right on "the facts"(and you are not) can you explain why the average DirecTV customer still pays far less than the average TWC, Comcast or Cox cable subscriber for TV service?

A better analogy is how cable companies for years have been jacking their rates to all subscribers at far higher than cost of living rates to pay for expensive phone and internet upgrades -- which have nothing to do with TV service.

Oh unlucky you.....you live in LA which has always had SD and HD LIL - and D* is jacking up your rates so you they can pay for expensive SD and HD Upgrades that will give service to Des Moines, Tulsa, Anchorage and Mobile among others :D

Well you can always move. Not sure you can claim a monopoly because you choose to live where you cannot set up a dish. You did have a choice, you made a choice to live where you do.
Exactly. I specifically moved to a TWC area last year because they were my only source for FSN HD WEST (Lakers in HD). Now, almost all of SoCal is TWC so it really didn't matter in the long run (Charter, Mediacom, and maybe Cox still have some areas). Also, my apartment trims the trees yearly and is actually very dish friendly if I so desired to move to dish (I also researched this before moving).

Very prophetic of you. The NFL-- stupid? Uh, I don't think so. It's only one of the most successful multi-billion dollar American businesses that exists today-- with a growth curve that's through the roof, especially with the most prized TV demographic-- affluent, 25-54 yr old males.

They are only successful because of the fact they have people like you that are brainwashed to have city officials spend hundreds of millions in Tax Dollars that again, EVERYONE PAYS FOR, for giant stadiums and large tax breaks.

If it were not for these huge concessions, most teams would be hard pressed to show a profit - if they even could.

If this were not true, there is no reason why LA would not have a NFL team with the amount of revenue that can be produced in that market.

So the rest of us are tired of paying for YOUR STADIUM and YOUR CABLE BILL.

Take some personal responsibility in your life and if you want something, step up and pay for it.

It's people like you that want others to pay for them that should PRAY for the NFL network to fail - because if it succeeds - within 10 years there won't be a ST package - EVERY GAME will be PPV for a nice hefty price - just like boxing.

Then we will see how much you like pay about half the price of the ticket at the stadium to view 1 game.

Take some personal responsibility in your life and if you want something, step up and pay for it.

It's people like you that want others to pay for them that should PRAY for the NFL network to fail ...

Hey, NYCTiger ... I told you-- our friends on this forum who believe that TWC is altruistic and the NFL is a mean old money-machine --always come back with personal shots when they're faced with facts.

Well you can always move. Not sure you can claim a monopoly because you choose to live where you cannot set up a dish. You did have a choice, you made a choice to live where you do.


Whether I move or not, there still exists a monopoly for certain addresses/residences, particularly in more densely populated areas.

toadfannc, I may have asked before and you may have answered, but I don't recall now.... I realize another cable company isn't an option, but why don't you get DirecTV or Dish ?? Both carry NFL Network.

toadfannc, I may have asked before and you may have answered, but I don't recall now.... I realize another cable company isn't an option, but why don't you get DirecTV or Dish ?? Both carry NFL Network.

Satellite may not feasible where I live. I also like the convenience of cable (no additional equip for HD locals needed). And, I've foolishly believed that TWC would add some programming. I've really given up on that one. Come Jan. 1st, I think I may be joining the countless others who have already defected. When I do switch, it won't be just for the NFL Network. It'll be because of TWC's inaction and attitude about customer demand.

Satellite may not feasible where I live. I also like the convenience of cable (no additional equip for HD locals needed). And, I've foolishly believed that TWC would add some programming. I've really given up on that one. Come Jan. 1st, I think I may be joining the countless others who have already defected. When I do switch, it won't be just for the NFL Network. It'll be because of TWC's inaction and attitude about customer demand.
Toad you didn't get the extras with TWC yet, be patient increases ar a coming. Starzhd and max HD is making its rounds, but we do lose one INHD2 is going bye bye. I can't believe you have HDondemand

Hey, NYCTiger ... I told you-- our friends on this forum who believe that TWC is altruistic and the NFL is a mean old money-machine --always come back with personal shots when they're faced with facts.


You mean the facts that you refuse to accept as true? And please show me where I said TWC was altruistic or even anything that implies it?

How about a list of the NFL teams that paid for the Stadiums they are now playing in that were not built with public money and tax breaks?

You mean the facts that you refuse to accept as true? And please show me where I said TWC was altruistic or even anything that implies it?

How about a list of the NFL teams that paid for the Stadiums they are now playing in that were not built with public money and tax breaks?

I can think of at least 2-- Washington and New England. There probably are more. I agree-- I hate when any sports team uses the public to subsidize stadiums/ballparks. But, if an NFL team gets a stadium built with local tax money, that's on the bozo local politicians and the public for letting it happen. If you're in a place where they've built a stadium using your tax money, and you're pissed-- you have a choice ... either move or vote out your representatives who made the decision for you.

I also agree that the NFL has taken every chance to maximize revenue streams-- and the NFL Network is just another example. But, Time Warner is a bigger corporation than the NFL and they do much worse. In this case, they really want to take this product (the NFL Network) and place it in a "tier" so that they can charge 5 times the actual per subscriber cost. If the NFL allowed this, TWC would jam the NFL Network into their existing sports tier (which includes some soccer channels, the Tennis Channel, CSTV and a couple of other absolutely worthless channels ... that NO ONE currently subscribes to)-- and increase it from $2.95 to about $10. So, they would pay the NFL about .75/sub and pocket the remaining $7.00/sub. Is that fair? I believe it's much more fair for TWC to add this and other channels without this kind of dishonesty.

Why are so many of you willing to give TW a pass on this? Is it so wrong to expect your cable company to keep up with other providers like Comcast (who has added at least 5 national HD channels in the past year) or Cox? I'm sure many of you will not think twice as your cable bill increases about 10% in Jan '07. Meanwhile, there have been no significant HD/SD (non-subscriptions like Starz, etc.) channels of any interest or value that have been added to the TWC line-up in almost 3 years. I can not wait for other land-based alternatives (Verizon, AT&T, etc.) to really compete with cable. Satellite is either inconvenient or not feasible for many, so a lot of subscribers simply have no choice. So, in most cases satellite and cable have settled into a cozy co-existence and continue to raise rates accordingly. 2007 should be interesting.

I can think of at least 2-- Washington and New England. There probably are more. I agree-- I hate when any sports team uses the public to subsidize stadiums/ballparks. But, if an NFL team gets a stadium built with local tax money, that's on the bozo local politicians and the public for letting it happen. If you're in a place where they've built a stadium using your tax money, and you're pissed-- you have a choice ... either move or vote out your representatives who made the decision for you.

I also agree that the NFL has taken every chance to maximize revenue streams-- and the NFL Network is just another example. But, Time Warner is a bigger corporation than the NFL and they do much worse. In this case, they really want to take this product (the NFL Network) and place it in a "tier" so that they can charge 5 times the actual per subscriber cost. If the NFL allowed this, TWC would jam the NFL Network into their existing sports tier (which includes some soccer channels, the Tennis Channel, CSTV and a couple of other absolutely worthless channels ... that NO ONE currently subscribes to)-- and increase it from $2.95 to about $10. So, they would pay the NFL about .75/sub and pocket the remaining $7.00/sub. Is that fair? I believe it's much more fair for TWC to add this and other channels without this kind of dishonesty.

Why are so many of you willing to give TW a pass on this? Is it so wrong to expect your cable company to keep up with other providers like Comcast (who has added at least 5 national HD channels in the past year) or Cox? I'm sure many of you will not think twice as your cable bill increases about 10% in Jan '07. Meanwhile, there have been no significant HD/SD (non-subscriptions like Starz, etc.) channels of any interest or value that have been added to the TWC line-up in almost 3 years. I can not wait for other land-based alternatives (Verizon, AT&T, etc.) to really compete with cable. Satellite is either inconvenient or not feasible for many, so a lot of subscribers simply have no choice. So, in most cases satellite and cable have settled into a cozy co-existence and continue to raise rates accordingly. 2007 should be interesting.

I have to disagree with you. Public funds are needed to finance these stadiums but the long term gains outweighs the short term expense. Any stadium takes years of work to create. 5 Years minimum. This is what people tend to forget. Yes it is your tax dollars that are financing a good chunk of these stadiums. But in most places those stadiums become state property. Not only does it add 100's to 1000's of job for those 5+ years. With each one of those workers contributing back to that state and city taxes. When they might have been unemployed. The gains usually out pace the lost. Plus the majority of the time any new stadium brings in sellouts for a few years after the grand opening. Even a team that doesn't usually get a a large crowd.(not all teams have had that fortune, but most do) Each tickets has taxes added to them also. Not only that. We also need to remember that the new wave is the retractable roofs, which helps the stadiums make money 365 days a year. Which brings in more money to the states. People need to stop being short sighted and look at the big picture when it comes to these stadiums. All these stadiums give more back then it borrows from most states. The new thing that some states have been doing(minnesota and Seattle come to mind), they used lottery games to fund a good chunk of the states part of their funds. Also most of the clubs have leases, sure they get tax breaks. But they still have to pay to occupy the building. I am not saying all Stadiums will make a profit,Washington probably will take some time to get it's money back but it will make it back in the long run.

TWC is a bigger company but has more divisions that you probably couldn't count on both your hands. Each division is in itself a separate entity. TWC is one of those entities. But just like the NFL it is a business first. The key for business is to make a profit. While the NFL has only thirty owners to make happy. TWC has to make the other divisions happy so The parent does not lose money as a whole. But each company operates independently of each other. If TWC is making money daddy is happy because they bring in a profit. If the picture division is losing money they have to figure out a way to make money themselves because big daddy isn't their to bail any division out. You can't look at those record profits as only coming from TWC, which a lot of you guys are doing. That is wrong. Just go down the line and you will see that every independent Cable and sat company is in the red or barely making a profit. This NFL net is a specialized network. A network that will have ratings for 3 months. That is it. Why would TWC or other cable companies want to spend money or make their customers spend money for a specialty channel that is active for only 3 months? Some of you guys point out that is will show the draft. The draft is covered by sports station that actually broadcast live sports almost everyday of the year. How many fans would actually watch this channel in the off-season?

You can't say that TWC hasn't been keeping up anymore. At least in NYC we have added 5 full time HD channels this fall. Sure they might behind on some channels but you know what for what is offered why rush. Make sure you do it right before you add channels. Isn't dish or direct having problems now because they aren't giving true HD anymore. I rather TWC take it's time then get HDlite service that many forum members have complained about here. More doesn't mean better. Plus, not all of Cox and Comcast has all the channels it offers. Just like TWC doesn't have all the channels. TWC offers ondemandHD I don't get that one, but now I have Starzhd and MaxHD so I think you need to check availability again before you make this as a part of you argument. I have 21 channels available right now and they are all full time channels. So I really can't complain about my choices.

I welcome the competition because then I will get my bill lowered. But I can't believe all the people that think that Verizon or any FIOS carrier will be perfect out of the gate. After a month of wide distribution there will be the Normal "I hate VERIZON" or "I hate AT&T" right here at AVS forum. Because that is how people are. I talked to my friend who has had it for over a year. Surprise surprise his Verizon service is more then he paid for cable after the promotion period ended. This will lead cable subscribers to better prices, but don't expect the service to come with out flaws because that is blind faith.

TWC isn't perfect but it is the service I have and I am with them on this NFL net problem, you want to know why? Because the NFL is trying to take a piece out of their own pie and screw the consumer in the process. These are 8 games that would have been available to us for free. But now my cable bill will go up if the NFL gets to put it on reg digital service. Then to watch the games in HD I would have to pay more because I guarantee that it will be on the HDExtra and they will raise that price for the 8 games and a part time network instead of adding another full time one.(I would have gotten in HD for free also.) This is why I am rooting for TWC on this one.

The Business of TV
Political Football
Don't Darken My Knights: N.J. Pol
By Peter Lauria, The New York Post December 7, 2006

New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg wants his Rutgers bowl game - and he's calling on the NFL Network to let him have it.

"Rutgers fans should be able to watch Rutgers play in their bowl game - period," Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said.

"The fans should not be used as a bargaining chip in the dispute between the NFL Network and cable companies," he said in a letter sent yesterday to the NFL Network urging it to allow the game to be shown on local television in New Jersey.

Coming off arguably the best season in the school's history, the Scarlet Knights will be playing in this year's Texas Bowl on Dec. 28.

Rutgers fans won't be able to see the game since the NFL Network, which holds exclusive rights to the Insight Bowl and the Texas Bowl, is currently blacked out of most of New York and New Jersey due to a dispute over how much Time Warner Cable and Cablevision will pay to carry the station. Satellite services are currently carrying the NFL Network.

"Because a majority of New Jerseyans, even most who pay for cable service, cannot watch the NFL Network, I urge you to permit this game to be shown on local broadcast television in New Jersey," wrote Lautenberg, who is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees cable and broadcast television.

"We received Senator Lautenberg's letter and share his desire to have the Rutgers bowl game seen by as many of the team's fans as possible," said an NFL Network spokesman in a statement. "As the Senator recognizes, we have repeatedly offered to make not only this Rutgers game, but all NFL Network programming, available broadly throughout New Jersey.

"We regret that Time Warner and Cablevision have not yet agreed to carry NFL Network, but we will to work as hard as we can to resolve this commercial dispute as soon as possible. We hope that Time Warner and Cablevision will show the same concern for the fans and resume negotiations with us promptly."

After several months of failed talks prior to the NFL Network's premiere broadcast on Thanksgiving night, the two sides are currently at a stalemate with a return to the negotiating table nowhere in sight.

"Just as the NFL Network makes Giants or Jets games available in the New York market, and any other NFL team in any other home market available, they should certainly do the same for Rutgers," a Cablevision spokesman said.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12072006/business/political_football_business_peter_lauria.htm

I have to disagree with you. Public funds are needed to finance these stadiums but the long term gains outweighs the short term expense. Any stadium takes years of work to create. 5 Years minimum. This is what people tend to forget. Yes it is your tax dollars that are financing a good chunk of these stadiums. But in most places those stadiums become state property. Not only does it add 100's to 1000's of job for those 5+ years. With each one of those workers contributing back to that state and city taxes. When they might have been unemployed.

Good points. Hey, I'm with ya. Others on this forum are so anti-NFL that they can't see through their angst. The NFL has a product. What does TWC have-- on demand car shopping?

TWC does make enormous for daddy Time Warner. But, why should we as cable subscribers have to pay (in the form of no new programming) to finance the other parts of Time Warner?

If you're in a place where they've built a stadium using your tax money, and you're pissed-- you have a choice ... either move or vote out your representatives who made the decision for you.

same advice applies if you hate your cable company to the point of posting daily bitter rants about them...move or disconnect. ;)

If the NFL allowed this, TWC would jam the NFL Network into their existing sports tier (which includes some soccer channels, the Tennis Channel, CSTV and a couple of other absolutely worthless channels ... that NO ONE currently subscribes to)--

You'd be surprised how many people subscribe to the sports tier to follow their favorite sport. I know of plenty of people who base their choice on their TV provider based upon the availabiltiy of such channels.

I myself are a directv subscriber primarily due to the availability of soccer related channels.

You are right to say that adding the NFL network there will only boost demand for such channels, which is why it makes perfect sense for the cable company's to do just that. The fact that there has been no national outrage over missing 8 out of market NFL games seems to confirm that they are correct in their approach.

I've subscribed to the sports tier during college hoops season the last 2 years (to get the Fox College Sports channels and CSTV). I don't have a problem with NFL-N going there assuming the price doesn't rise that much (since I would only add it for basically one more month) AND Comcast gives me the games in HD, which they presently don't even though their stupid guide says they do. Plus Comcast really should add ESPNU to it as well.

I subscribe to the Sports Tier for just one channel - NBATV

I have the Sports and Entertainment tier (the new name for it on Comcast) in anticpation that this is where HDNEt and HDNET Movies will be. :)

Boy this is getting nastier than I ever thought it would! :confused:

The Business of TV
TW Cable sues DirecTV amid football fracas
Spots claim some TW subs can't get regular-season games
By John Dempsey Variety

Are Jessica Simpson and William Shatner lying about the quality of Time Warner Cable's high-definition picture?

Time Warner says yes, slapping a lawsuit on DirecTV for deceptive advertising in two areas: its ad campaign for high def (featuring Simpson and Shatner) and its spots that claim TW subscribers in some markets won't be able to get a regular-season NFL game featuring their local team.

What led to the suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, is TW Cable's unwillingness to engineer a basic-cable deal with the NFL Network, which for the first time has begun carrying regular-season games. Net is being delivered to all of DirecTV's 15.6 million customers.

Seizing the opportunity to lure TW Cable subscribers in cities like New York, Cincinnati and Green Bay, Wisc., to cancel cable and buy a satellite dish, DirecTV joined with the NFL Network two months ago to set up a multimillion-dollar marketing campaign aimed at football fans.

In New York, for example, the ads said that 4.4 million cable subscribers in the region will not be able to get the Giants-Washington Redskins primetime game on Dec. 30 because the NFL Network has exclusive national-TV coverage.

But, in reality, TW Cable customers will see the game on WNBC, says the TW suit, based on NFL bylaws that permit TV carriage of a local game that won't be available from the national network.

In the high-def part of the suit, TW Cable goes after a national DirecTV ad campaign trotting out celebrities to say that "for picture quality that beats cable, you've got to get DirecTV."

Calling this claim false, suit says the high-def pictures sent out by DirecTV and TW Cable "provide exactly the same screen resolution."

A DirecTV spokesman said the company hasn't received notice of the suit so it would have no comment.

But in a number of TW Cable markets with an NFL team, the spokesman added, DirecTV has seen double-digit increases in the number of new subscriber signups since its campaign with the NFL net kicked off.

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=print_story&articleid=VR1117955321&categoryid=14

I suppose "provide exactly the same screen resolution" is more easily explained than actual superiority over HDLite.

I can think of at least 2-- Washington and New England. There probably are more. I agree-- I hate when any sports team uses the public to subsidize stadiums/ballparks. But, if an NFL team gets a stadium built with local tax money, that's on the bozo local politicians and the public for letting it happen. If you're in a place where they've built a stadium using your tax money, and you're pissed-- you have a choice ... either move or vote out your representatives who made the decision for you.

I also agree that the NFL has taken every chance to maximize revenue streams-- and the NFL Network is just another example. But, Time Warner is a bigger corporation than the NFL and they do much worse. In this case, they really want to take this product (the NFL Network) and place it in a "tier" so that they can charge 5 times the actual per subscriber cost. If the NFL allowed this, TWC would jam the NFL Network into their existing sports tier (which includes some soccer channels, the Tennis Channel, CSTV and a couple of other absolutely worthless channels ... that NO ONE currently subscribes to)-- and increase it from $2.95 to about $10. So, they would pay the NFL about .75/sub and pocket the remaining $7.00/sub. Is that fair? I believe it's much more fair for TWC to add this and other channels without this kind of dishonesty.

Why are so many of you willing to give TW a pass on this? Is it so wrong to expect your cable company to keep up with other providers like Comcast (who has added at least 5 national HD channels in the past year) or Cox? I'm sure many of you will not think twice as your cable bill increases about 10% in Jan '07. Meanwhile, there have been no significant HD/SD (non-subscriptions like Starz, etc.) channels of any interest or value that have been added to the TWC line-up in almost 3 years. I can not wait for other land-based alternatives (Verizon, AT&T, etc.) to really compete with cable. Satellite is either inconvenient or not feasible for many, so a lot of subscribers simply have no choice. So, in most cases satellite and cable have settled into a cozy co-existence and continue to raise rates accordingly. 2007 should be interesting.


Actually, I've probably spent MUCH MORE TIME researching it instead of blanket statements like Comcast had added 5 new HD Channels this year.

Have you actually take the time to compare every channel on your TWC system to one of Comcast's systems to find out exactly what you are getting on each side by side?

FWIW, I felt the same way as you until I actually did that - planning to point to it and say, SEE!!!!! why can they do it and you can't.

It takes several hours to map both, but its an eye opener on how things are done - and what happens on 2 systems - not what agreements have been signed that may or may not be on a system if space available.

FWIW, when I went down side by side with my TWC managed system of ALL HD CHANNELS INCLUDING OTA side by side (I MAPPED ALL HD AND SD CHANNELS AS WELL) with what I consider to be one of the better Comcast Systems - Atlanta - because it does not Rate Shape so it passes all HD Natively, for HD alone I found:

On the Comcast Atlanta system, they had in HD with no equivalent on the TWC system:

1) ESPN2HD
2) MHD
3) CinemaxHD
4) STARZHD
5) Local MyNetworkTV HDTV Affiliate

On the TWC Managed system, in HD with no equivalent on Comcast Atlanta:
1) Local PBS HD Affiliate
2) A&E HD
3) INHD2
4) HDNET
5) HDNET Movies
6) Universal HD

Now could I debate those choices? Sure I could. But bottom line was that all told my TWC system had 1 more HD Channel than Comcast Atlanta had on it.

If you look at Comcasts SD Channel lineup side by side with the TWC Managed System, you can see where Comcast got an additional QAM or 2 early on as well.

But bottom line, after I looked at what I considered one of the best Comcast Systems, as opposed to what the Corporations had signed deals with, the difference in numbers wasn't there - with the TWC system actually having 1 more HD signal than Comcast - which wasn't what I expected.

Actually, I've probably spent MUCH MORE TIME researching it instead of blanket statements like Comcast had added 5 new HD Channels this year.

Have you actually take the time to compare every channel on your TWC system to one of Comcast's systems to find out exactly what you are getting on each side by side?

FWIW, I felt the same way as you until I actually did that - planning to point to it and say, SEE!!!!! why can they do it and you can't.

It takes several hours to map both, but its an eye opener on how things are done - and what happens on 2 systems - not what agreements have been signed that may or may not be on a system if space available.

FWIW, when I went down side by side with my TWC managed system of ALL HD CHANNELS INCLUDING OTA side by side (I MAPPED ALL HD AND SD CHANNELS AS WELL) with what I consider to be one of the better Comcast Systems - Atlanta - because it does not Rate Shape so it passes all HD Natively, for HD alone I found:

On the Comcast Atlanta system, they had in HD with no equivalent on the TWC system:

1) ESPN2HD
2) MHD
3) CinemaxHD
4) STARZHD
5) Local MyNetworkTV HDTV Affiliate

On the TWC Managed system, in HD with no equivalent on Comcast Atlanta:
1) Local PBS HD Affiliate
2) A&E HD
3) INHD2
4) HDNET
5) HDNET Movies
6) Universal HD

Now could I debate those choices? Sure I could. But bottom line was that all told my TWC system had 1 more HD Channel than Comcast Atlanta had on it.

If you look at Comcasts SD Channel lineup side by side with the TWC Managed System, you can see where Comcast got an additional QAM or 2 early on as well.

But bottom line, after I looked at what I considered one of the best Comcast Systems, as opposed to what the Corporations had signed deals with, the difference in numbers wasn't there - with the TWC system actually having 1 more HD signal than Comcast - which wasn't what I expected.

So, you have A&E HD? I understood that Comcast just added that. I was not aware that TWC had a deal for A&E HD. I don't see it on the TWC NYC line-up. And, I'm sure you know that InHD2 is going away in 22 days. PBS HD varies by locality-- we're talking about nationally distributed channels here.

Here's a thread (Comcast Chicago, Baltimore, etc.) that shows Comcast having A&E HD, ESPN2HD, Universal HD, National Geo HD, NFL Network (SD and HD games simalcast on InHD), Fox Sports Net HD, MTVHD, etc. (all except for Universal HD not carried by TWC). As far as I can tell only HDNet and HDNet movies are on TWC and not Comcast.

http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?t=28619

Obviously, it varies by local office but it seems to me that Comcast has a better line-up than TWC. But, I suppose what is "better" is up to the individual, eh?

I wonder, has Verizon also taken real advantage of Cable companies NFL blunder ?

They are with the Bowl Games:

Press Release

(Media-Newswire.com) -

Texas Bowl to Be Broadcast on Verizon's FiOS TV and for Verizon's DIRECTV Subscribers

December 7, 2006

Media Contact:
Rich Young, 973-649-2279

NEWARK, N.J. - While most Cablevision, Time Warner and Comcast analog-cable television subscribers in New York and New Jersey won't be able to see the Rutgers and Kansas State football teams play in the Texas Bowl on Dec. 28, other consumers in the region will have a better alternative. The game will be available on Verizon's FiOS TV service and for Verizon's DIRECTV customers in New York, New Jersey* and throughout the region.

Unlike Cablevision and Time Warner, Verizon has an agreement to carry the NFL Network on its FiOS TV service. The game will also be available on DIRECTV, a service Verizon sells as part of its suite of voice, data and video services.

"This is a prime example of why choice and competition in the video market is so critical to consumers," said Marilyn O'Connell, Verizon's senior vice president of video solutions. "We're proud to offer consumers in the metropolitan area a chance to see Rutgers - the region's hometown team -- play in Texas. And it's something that won't be seen by Cablevision, Time Warner or Comcast analog-TV customers."

"We look forward to the New Jersey BPU quickly approving Verizon's franchise application and making video choice and the Texas Bowl available to even more consumers in the area," said O'Connell. "For too long, consumers have been held hostage by these all-too-common squabbles between networks and the monopolistic cable-TV providers. It's time to bring an end to these barriers to competition and let the consumer decide."

TWC has filed a false-advertising lawsuit against DirecTV Inc. over its ads for the NFL Network and its high-definition television service.

Time Warner Cable Sues DirecTV (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/printarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20061208&id=6261119)

So, you have A&E HD? I understood that Comcast just added that. I was not aware that TWC had a deal for A&E HD. I don't see it on the TWC NYC line-up. And, I'm sure you know that InHD2 is going away in 22 days. PBS HD varies by locality-- we're talking about nationally distributed channels here.


HD is HD - They will take up more room than SD Channels - no matter where they originate. If you have more local HD Channels, ergo there is less room for National HD Channels.

TWC has a deal for Cinemax HD - as it has been offered on their San Antonio system (and possibly others). It comes down to available bandwidth.

Obviously I know InHD2 is going away - as suspect they will replace it with another HD Channel shortly.


Here's a thread (Comcast Chicago, Baltimore, etc.) that shows Comcast having A&E HD, ESPN2HD, Universal HD, National Geo HD, NFL Network (SD and HD games simalcast on InHD), Fox Sports Net HD, MTVHD, etc. (all except for Universal HD not carried by TWC). As far as I can tell only HDNet and HDNet movies are on TWC and not Comcast.

http://www.hdtvoice.com/voice/showthread.php?t=28619

Obviously, it varies by local office but it seems to me that Comcast has a better line-up than TWC. But, I suppose what is "better" is up to the individual, eh?

Now you are counting an 8 game a year network as HD - but you say not to count locals that HD 365 days a year.....interesting.

Now if you would bother to read the thread you posted, it even states that the only system that has all those is Detroit.

In Detroit they list 4 HD Channels (ESPN2/MTV/NatGeo/FoxSports). Given TW has HDNET, thats only a diference of 2 - and everyone expects INHD2 to be replaced with something.

Baltimore only lists 2 HD Channels difference (ESPN2/CSN). They list MTV replacing INHD2 - and most likely TWC will replace INHD2 with something as well. Again, put in both HDNETs and you have a net difference of Zero.

Panama City from that thread has even less.

So again, people are bitching that TWC hasn't added a channel in 2 years (not true) and Comcast has added 5, yet the above shows the Comcast systems don't have a 5 HD Channel Advantage.

I am not apologizing for TWC, but I am saying the difference isn't as big as most think.

Would I like a different custom line up? Yep. Will I get it, probably not, lol - but I wouldn't have HDNET if I were a Comcast sub either.

All told, I'd rather have the concerts on HDNET than MTV any day.

I am not apologizing for TWC, but I am saying the difference isn't as big as most think.

You're right. I'm wrong. TWC is awesome. Glad to hear that you have A&E HD. I'm sure that will be on every TWC system soon. And, there's no doubt a replacement channel will be in place on 1/1 in place of InHD2. TWC would never give us less than what we currently have.

Actually, I've probably spent MUCH MORE TIME researching it instead of blanket statements like Comcast had added 5 new HD Channels this year.

Have you actually take the time to compare every channel on your TWC system to one of Comcast's systems to find out exactly what you are getting on each side by side?

FWIW, I felt the same way as you until I actually did that - planning to point to it and say, SEE!!!!! why can they do it and you can't.

It takes several hours to map both, but its an eye opener on how things are done - and what happens on 2 systems - not what agreements have been signed that may or may not be on a system if space available.

FWIW, when I went down side by side with my TWC managed system of ALL HD CHANNELS INCLUDING OTA side by side (I MAPPED ALL HD AND SD CHANNELS AS WELL) with what I consider to be one of the better Comcast Systems - Atlanta - because it does not Rate Shape so it passes all HD Natively, for HD alone I found:

On the Comcast Atlanta system, they had in HD with no equivalent on the TWC system:

1) ESPN2HD
2) MHD
3) CinemaxHD
4) STARZHD
5) Local MyNetworkTV HDTV Affiliate

On the TWC Managed system, in HD with no equivalent on Comcast Atlanta:
1) Local PBS HD Affiliate
2) A&E HD
3) INHD2
4) HDNET
5) HDNET Movies
6) Universal HD

Now could I debate those choices? Sure I could. But bottom line was that all told my TWC system had 1 more HD Channel than Comcast Atlanta had on it.

If you look at Comcasts SD Channel lineup side by side with the TWC Managed System, you can see where Comcast got an additional QAM or 2 early on as well.

But bottom line, after I looked at what I considered one of the best Comcast Systems, as opposed to what the Corporations had signed deals with, the difference in numbers wasn't there - with the TWC system actually having 1 more HD signal than Comcast - which wasn't what I expected.
hey we have staz HD and Max HD on TWC now!!! Doesn't that eliminate 2 channels off comcast list of exclusives?

hey we have staz HD and Max HD on TWC now!!! Doesn't that eliminate 2 channels off comcast list of exclusives?


As I earlier stated, all systems are different, depending on bandwidth.

As I also noted, those were the differences on MY TWC MANAGED SYSTEM vs. what I considered to be one of the best Comcast Systems - Atlanta.

Thus, the differences in other cities will be just that - differences.

As also noted, just because a Corporation has a signed agreement with a channel, that doesn't mean that ALL systems are offering it - which is why I said to examine your TWC system of ALL offerings vs a single Comcast system.

I saw an ad by TW in the NY papers today saying that "Verizon is wrong, you will be able to see the Giants/Skins game on WNBC Ch4 or even in HD on 704"

Well thanks for something I already know. It's not like you did me a favor, it's because it's the rule of the NFL to show a game in a teams home market. Now what about all the other games I miss?

I saw an ad by TW in the NY papers today saying that "Verizon is wrong, you will be able to see the Giants/Skins game on WNBC Ch4 or even in HD on 704"

Well thanks for something I already know. It's not like you did me a favor, it's because it's the rule of the NFL to show a game in a teams home market. Now what about all the other games I miss?
They are just making sure these companies do not false advertise. As for the game being in HD, that is a good question. The NFL net is suppose to have the game in HD but the agreement is to broadcast the game, there is nothing in the deal that says it has to be in HD. It would favor the NFL net if they only alow a SD similacast because then more people would be on their side for TWC to get the NFLnet so we can see the games in HD.

Imagine if NFLnet has the game in HD and the game is lousy, who do they blame but themselves. NBC is just similcasting the game. They have no control over the signal. This will be a good test for them to show off a good product.

When Denver-KC was on NFL Network on Thanksgiving night, it was in HD on our local FOX channel.

So far every nfl city that had a nfl network game had the game simulcast in HD on a local channel.

Don't think there were too many quality comparisions, but I remember seeing a couple that said they looked the same, or close enough.

The problem with the whole, "They allow the game to be shown in the local market" thing is it's a fallacy.

Take the upcoming Giants vs. Redskins. It will be televised in the local market over the air by WNBC-4 in New York City. Unfortunately, 80 percent of the Capital Region, the "Home of the Giants" in July and August, will be unable to see it over the air - per http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=543308&category=SPORTS&newsdate=12/10/2006

Depending on how you look at it, perhaps it's even worse for the Packers Fans. All of Wisconsin considers itself local for it's team. Previous reports are the 73% of the State will not be able to get the game on local tv.

Combine this with the fact that the NFL is a National Sport that actually derives more of it's ratings from around the Country than just local * and you can see the problem.

* Posted previously - http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8321048&highlight=55#post8321048

Now what about all the other games I miss?

If you must see all games, just as you do for the games on Sunday, you simply subscribe to D* ST and get all of them.

Otherwise, cable has never stated they bring you every NFL games nor have they ever stated they bring you ever channel - period.

The Grocery Store doesn't carry every single item I want, nor can I find everything I want in 1 Mall. I could not eat in 1 Resturant 3 meals a day every week either.

Even Bill Gates doesn't have everything......That's life. Accept it.

The problem with the whole, "They allow the game to be shown in the local market" thing is it's a fallacy.

Combine this with the fact that the NFL is a National Sport that actually derives more of it's ratings from around the Country than just local * and you can see the problem.

Gosh...maybe the NFL should give the channel free to the cable companies so they can sell advertising nationwide then, huh?

Now what about all the other games I miss?

Up until relatively recently, not having access to many of the games in all sports was the norm. The fans' perspective on this has changed significantly due the amount of coverage that is now available.

This is why I find the NFL's actions to be curious. It seems retro in a way. At a time when everyone is increasing content availability, the NFL has limited their product by moving these games to their own, less subscribed network and by providing exclusivity to DirecTV and by not having some sort of online access to games (hope that comes soon).

Since there are so many games available, most fans will survive just fine missing one now and again. In a few years, I'd imagine that everyone will have access to every game if they wish to pay for it. Until then, we just get to be frustrated as we watch each corporation decide how best to get more money from us.

PROGRAMMING: TWC Inks MTV/BET Deals
MTV Networks and BET Networks, both units of Viacom, renewed their program carriage agreement with Time Warner Cable. The previous agreements were broadened to include digital distribution rights for MTV World, LOGO, MTV Tr3s, MHD and MTV and BET free on-demand content.

You're right. I'm wrong. And, there's no doubt a replacement channel will be in place on 1/1 in place of InHD2. TWC would never give us less than what we currently have.

Have a nice day with your crow.

excerpt: some customers have canceled Time Warner service here over the dispute, but he said that number is "under 100." New video installations for the company — which serves 360,000 San Antonio households — were up 12 percent in November from a year ago.

"We've heard from just as many customers who want us to hold the line with the NFL as we have customers who want us to carry the network."

Time Warner goes on offense vs. the NFL (http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA121206.01E.NFLNetwork.282ca0b.html)

... and yet Cable rates go up about 6% on average every year !

... and each year Cable customers wonder just what they're getting for this increase !

excerpt: some customers have canceled Time Warner service here over the dispute, but he said that number is "under 100." New video installations for the company — which serves 360,000 San Antonio households — were up 12 percent in November from a year ago.

"We've heard from just as many customers who want us to hold the line with the NFL as we have customers who want us to carry the network."

Time Warner goes on offense vs. the NFL (http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA121206.01E.NFLNetwork.282ca0b.html)

Well anyone can spin numbers to make them say what they want. San Antonio is going through a bit of a growth boom right now and TWC should be able to hit 12% just based on all of the new housing developments. They aren't up 12% because people love them and can't wait to write them a check each month.

Well anyone can spin numbers to make them say what they want. San Antonio is going through a bit of a growth boom right now and TWC should be able to hit 12% just based on all of the new housing developments. They aren't up 12% because people love them and can't wait to write them a check each month.

Actually, with AT&T offering their service for the first time in San Antonio, if they are up 12% net with new competition, that is great. If they did not have a new competitor, I would agree with you - but it shows people aren't leaving in masses and people are signing up for them - not their competition.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2695312

NEW YORK -- The NFL has offered one free week of its network programming to two cable TV operators who do not carry the channel in hopes of breaking a deadlock.

Commissioner Roger Goodell told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the week of Dec. 24-30 would be offered as a "free view" for customers of Cablevision and Time Warner Cable, two of the nation's largest cable carriers.

Neither Cablevision nor Time Warner carry NFL Network. Three regular-season Thursday night games already have not been available to those customers -- except in the markets of the participating teams, where the games aired on broadcast stations.

It is not unusual for cable channels such as HBO and Showtime to offer such free weeks to increase their subscribers.

Although the free view will not include the Saturday night game between the New York Giants and Washington Redskins, it will include the Texas Bowl featuring Rutgers vs. Kansas State on Dec. 28 and the Insight Bowl with Minnesota vs. Texas Tech on Dec. 29.

"This morning we are communicating to Time Warner and Cablevision that we are going to give them an opportunity for what we call a free view," Goodell said. "Cable operators do it all the time. It's so that the consumer can experience our network for a week and get the two college bowl games."

The Texas Bowl not being available to many viewers in New York has become a contentious issue because Rutgers is coming off its best Big East season and has become a popular team in the area. The NFL Network owns the rights to the Rutgers-Kansas State bowl game at Reliant Stadium in Houston.

"We are trying to accommodate consumers, our fans and the fans of Rutgers, to let them know we are trying to resolve this issue," said Goodell, who said he also has spoken with Gov. Jon Corzine and Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.

"We think this is a very good opportunity for people to see not only those two games, but the NFL Network. We certainly believe cable operators will see it the same way."

Spokesmen at Cablevision and Time Warner Cable did not immediately return calls for comment.

"From the NFL's perspective, they want to generate consumer support," said John Mansell, senior analyst at Kagan Research, a media analysis company. "It's not unusual for any new network to offer their service free, but typically for an extended period of time. Even then, most cable operators are reluctant to bite because of the problems they might face in taking it off the air. ... It's very difficult for the cable company to take anything away from the subscriber."

The NFL Network is available in about 40 million of the 111 million homes with TVs. In comparison, ESPN, which airs Monday night games, is available in 92 million.

So far every nfl city that had a nfl network game had the game simulcast in HD on a local channel.

Don't think there were too many quality comparisions, but I remember seeing a couple that said they looked the same, or close enough.
I heard that the PQ was about the same as Fox HD but the big downfall was the announcing. Gumble needs to stay with his "real sports" shows. The rest of the crew wasn't much better. Listen to radio when available
Is there any truth to these comments? If yes, How bad were they?

Actually, with AT&T offering their service for the first time in San Antonio, if they are up 12% net with new competition, that is great

Really? I work for AT&T and our service is only available to a rounding error of the population. I think TWC is up solely because of the construction boom and the fact that they have done well with their door to door campaigns in new neighborhoods.

With the latest news of a "free" offering it looks like the NFL network has been brought to its knees. Get the NFL network in every household for a week in hopes that people will sign up for the sports tier after the week is over. This really plays right into TWC's hands.

My guess is that TWC would be willing to offer a small concession -- a clause in the contract that says if over X% of the TWC subscribers sign onto the sports tier for a period following the free preview that the NFL network will have the right to request to be put on the expanded basic tier at some point before the start of next season.

Welcome to the sports tier NFL network. We'll see how many people subscribe.

I would not put it out of the question that the Cable companies either refuse this one week Basic Cable deal or place the channel for that week where it makes them the most money, in their Sports tier.

We are talking Cable companies, and there are no more unreasonable corporations in the World then those !

* I'm sure someone could make an argument for Big Oil, but we all know who would win.

Another one bites the dust:

http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=5804539&nav=3w6y

Lubbock TX, December 12, 2006 - NTS Communications is pleased to announce an agreement has been reached with NFL NETWORK, the first television network fully dedicated to the NFL and the sport of football, to add the channel to our programming lineup beginning December 12, 2006.

NTS Communications, which serves 1,500 subscribers in the Lubbock, will offer NFL NETWORK on Channel 54.

"We recognize our customers are very passionate about the NFL and we are happy we could reach an agreement with NFL NETWORK to bring this quality service to our programming lineup," said Mitch Elliott.

Well, Lubbock is Dallas Cowboy country and NTS had to bite the bullet before the game this Saturday night. If they serve only 1,500 subscribers they can't afford to lose any to DISH or DirecTV. Now in San Antonio on the other hand, TWC doesn't really care how many customers they might lose or tick off. Their pockets are deep enough to withstand the NFL's demands.

NFL already offered and TWC refused an extension of the former Adelphia systems contract.

NFL already offered and TWC refused an extension of the former Adelphia systems contract.


It wasnt free either.


Boy, I am so glad I am so out of it and know nothing: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9146251&&#post9146251

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2695312

NEW YORK -- The NFL has offered one free week of its network programming to two cable TV operators who do not carry the channel in hopes of breaking a deadlock.

Commissioner Roger Goodell told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the week of Dec. 24-30 would be offered as a "free view" for customers of Cablevision and Time Warner Cable, two of the nation's largest cable carriers.

They won't take the bait. There is no upside for them. It will only make more subs scream to add it. This deal is one sided for NFL Network. Try to force the cable companies to add the channel after all of their NFL games are done. TWC and CV aren't that stupid.

PROGRAMMING: TWC Inks MTV/BET Deals
MTV Networks and BET Networks, both units of Viacom, renewed their program carriage agreement with Time Warner Cable. The previous agreements were broadened to include digital distribution rights for MTV World, LOGO, MTV Tr3s, MHD and MTV and BET free on-demand content.



Have a nice day with your crow.

I think you have me all wrong. It's like you think I'm being sarcastic or something. I know now that TWC has nothing but the best intentions of its customers in mind ... as evidenced by:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6399398.html?display=Breaking+News

... and yet Cable rates go up about 6% on average every year !

... and each year Cable customers wonder just what they're getting for this increase !
Uh, nothing, pretty much. Rights fee increases (mostly for sports) are killing the goose.

Really? I work for AT&T and our service is only available to a rounding error of the population. I think TWC is up solely because of the construction boom and the fact that they have done well with their door to door campaigns in new neighborhoods.

Interesting - that isn't the picture AT&T is out selling to the rest of the world.

If you work for them, clearly you know.

I suppose AT&T is trying to spin it to appear to be in the big leagues between Houston and San Antonio????

But then again, if AT&T is only available to a rounding error, but set toadfannc on the right path that TWC can't cause much damage because the AT&T facilities only exist in a rounding area.

I know now that TWC has nothing but the best intentions of its customers in mind ... as evidenced by:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6399398.html?display=Breaking+News

And besides toadfannc, that's AT&T customers - not TWC customers.

And besides toadfannc, that's AT&T customers - not TWC customers.

Thanks. That cleared it up for me. Since TWC service people are cutting the lines that AT&T put in, for AT&T customers ... that makes it OK and very ethical.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6399398.html?display=Breaking+News

I have an idea for NFL Network.

NO not air the super Bowl EXCLUSIVELY there.

Produce the telecast. NFL network people NFL Network graphics and such CBS would just be the outlet it airs on like ESPN on ABC.

NFL could also have a few rebroadcasts of the game.

Another one bites the dust:

NTS Communications, which serves 1,500 subscribers in the Lubbock, will offer NFL NETWORK on Channel 54. Is NTS carrying NFL Network throughout their system or just in Lubbock TX ?? 1500 customers isn't worth mentioning.... TWC probably has 1500 customers in my greater neighborhood.

Welcome to the sports tier NFL network. We'll see how many people subscribe. NFL Network is being just as greedy as TWC is being stingy. The NFL won't accept $0.25 or $0.50 or $0.75 based on tier subscribers because they know it will amount to very little. They want a slice of the bigger pie, so that ALL subscribers are counted, yet the majority of those customers do NOT want to pay for what a fraction of the customers want.

I have an idea for NFL Network.

NO not air the super Bowl EXCLUSIVELY there.

Produce the telecast. NFL network people NFL Network graphics and such CBS would just be the outlet it airs on like ESPN on ABC.

NFL could also have a few rebroadcasts of the game.

The Super Bowl rights are sold for the next 6 years already to CBS, FOX and NBC. This is a meaningless discusion. It's never going to happen.

They won't take the bait. There is no upside for them. It will only make more subs scream to add it. This deal is one sided for NFL Network. Try to force the cable companies to add the channel after all of their NFL games are done. TWC and CV aren't that stupid.

I might be wrong. CV might do it just so they can show Rutgers' bowl game. The free week doesn't include any live NFL games.

I might be wrong. CV might do it just so they can show Rutgers' bowl game. The free week doesn't include any live NFL games.

Looks like you are right according to ESPN.

Here's the quote:
Cablevision will broadcast the NFL Network only for the Dec. 28 bowl game, showing all pre- and postgame coverage.

Link to source: ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2695312)

The Super Bowl rights are sold for the next 6 years already to CBS, FOX and NBC. This is a meaningless discusion. It's never going to happen.

I didn't say AIR it!

I said to PRODUCE IT! Use the game as a promotion for the network itself.

I didn't say AIR it!

I said to PRODUCE IT! Use the game as a promotion for the network itself.
And those rights include the right to produce the game as well. However, I do believe the halftime show has been produced by NFL network the last two years, but you can thank Janet Jackson for that.

The problem with the whole, "They allow the game to be shown in the local market" thing is it's a fallacy.

Nope, not 100% a fallacy.

The games ARE shown in the local market of the teams. Here, we got Browns/Steelers (as did Pittsburgh) on local OTA affiliates...even in HD!

The other markets are secondary, and while I agree they should get a chance to show the games, it's never been like that even long before the NFL Network showed up.

ESPN, for example, can only sell the games to primary markets, so even strong secondary markets like Albany NY, Youngstown OH, etc. are out of luck as far as local OTA broadcasts of cable/satellite games.

Youngstown, by the way, is the PERFECT secondary market for a game like Browns/Steelers, as it's about equally divided in loyalties between the two teams. However, many people in the market are close enough to either pick up the Cleveland or Pittsburgh stations in question over the air (or even on cable in many areas).

I recognize that the situation is different, geographically, in places like Albany.

And those rights include the right to produce the game as well. However, I do believe the halftime show has been produced by NFL network the last two years, but you can thank Janet Jackson for that.

Which is comical when you consider Prince is much more of a risk factor than Janet Jackson.

Thanks. That cleared it up for me. Since TWC service people are cutting the lines that AT&T put in, for AT&T customers ... that makes it OK and very ethical.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6399398.html?display=Breaking+News


You really are anal when proven wrong.

NO Utility goes out of their way to protect customers of competing utilities. You can see it in every market.

In one Florida Market alone, Verizon FIOS installation cut the feed cables of competing utilities close to 500 times in the last 2 years - and I have seen many reports of it in a number of other markets as well.

Using your logic, I guess that makes Verizon FIOS 500x worse than TWC?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2695312

Although the free view will not include the Saturday night game between the New York Giants and Washington Redskins, it will include the Texas Bowl featuring Rutgers vs. Kansas State on Dec. 28 and the Insight Bowl with Minnesota vs. Texas Tech on Dec. 29.

Doesn't matter here in NY since the Giant game will be simulcast on WNBC HD anyway.

FootballFree week from NFL Network
NEIL BEST
Newsday

December 13, 2006

The NFL Network yesterday offered a free week of its programming to Cablevision and Time Warner customers in the New York area, timed for Dec. 24-30 to coincide with Rutgers' participation in the Dec. 28 Texas Bowl.

Cablevision promptly announced that it would show the Rutgers-Kansas State game, but only that game, denying the network the chance to expose Cablevision customers to a broader look at its programs. The NFL Network declined to comment on Cablevision's scheme.

Time Warner said it was reviewing the NFL Network's offer.

It was the latest twist in an ongoing battle between cable companies and the network, which is seeking wider distribution beyond its 40 million homes. New Jersey politicians had been pressuring the NFL to make the game more widely available, ideally on a local broadcast channel.

The NFL Network's offer expires at 8 p.m. Dec. 30, just before the Giants-Redskins game, but that will be available on Ch. 4 for those without the network.

In an interview on WFAN yesterday, Cablevision president James Dolan linked the dispute over the NFL Network to his and other cable executives' frustration over not having access to the NFL's popular Sunday Ticket package. DirecTV pays $700 million per year for exclusive rights to that service.

Dolan called the NFL Network's fee of 70 cents per subscriber per month "ridiculous" and added, "You want me to buy this little network for eight games but you won't sell me the things my customers want the most."

Dolan added the cable industry happily would match DirecTV's price and for Sunday Ticket and said he would distribute the NFL Network at the NFL's asking price if he could have Sunday Ticket.

That is a moot point, because DirecTV has Sunday Ticket through 2010. Plus, to pay for it, cable outlets presumably would have to form a cooperative to negotiate a national deal.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/ny-spnfltv135013922dec13,0,2351327.story

Cablevision promptly announced that it would show the Rutgers-Kansas State game, but only that game, denying the network the chance to expose Cablevision customers to a broader look at its programs. The NFL Network declined to comment on Cablevision's scheme.


Cablevision scores with this move. Now let's see what NFLN does. Do they now say you have to show the whole week and not just the Rutgers game? If so they will look like jerks by now taking it away.

You really are anal when proven wrong.

NO Utility goes out of their way to protect customers of competing utilities. You can see it in every market.

In one Florida Market alone, Verizon FIOS installation cut the feed cables of competing utilities close to 500 times in the last 2 years - and I have seen many reports of it in a number of other markets as well.

Using your logic, I guess that makes Verizon FIOS 500x worse than TWC?

I'm confused. I have seen the light and have tried to make that clear. Your posts are implying that I'm being sarcastic. I think TWC is awesome-- you have opened my eyes to what a customer oriented company they are. Hey, I don't know why AT&T would go to the trouble of suing TWC. Don't they know that Time Warner cares about its customers and AT&T's too for that matter. Thank goodness they are protecting us from the NFL. I know ... with Time Warner's new and exciting emphasis on consumer protection-- they should expand from cable/internet/digital phone into the home security business. Watch out Brinks.

But, you know, I don't want to continue this tense discourse. As a matter of fact, I now consider you one of my closest friends- we are bonded by our mutual telecommunications expertise. My only regret is that I do not have your vast vocabulary, using big words like "anal" of which I am totally unfamiliar. Anyway, I wish you and your family and fellow TWC co-workers the best for the holidays.

Doesn't matter here in NY since the Giant game will be simulcast on WNBC HD anyway.


I don't think we'll (Albany) get the simulcast in HD.

Part of

FootballFree week from NFL Network
Dolan added the cable industry happily would match DirecTV's price and for Sunday Ticket and said he would distribute the NFL Network at the NFL's asking price if he could have Sunday Ticket.



So, it was not all about the high price of the NFL Network as some here would have us believe !

Most of us called this from the beginning.

I'm confused. I have seen the light and have tried to make that clear. Your posts are implying that I'm being sarcastic. I think TWC is awesome-- you have opened my eyes to what a customer oriented company they are. Hey, I don't know why AT&T would go to the trouble of suing TWC. Don't they know that Time Warner cares about its customers and AT&T's too for that matter. Thank goodness they are protecting us from the NFL. I know ... with Time Warner's new and exciting emphasis on consumer protection-- they should expand from cable/internet/digital phone into the home security business. Watch out Brinks.

But, you know, I don't want to continue this tense discourse. As a matter of fact, I now consider you one of my closest friends- we are bonded by our mutual telecommunications expertise. My only regret is that I do not have your vast vocabulary, using big words like "anal" of which I am totally unfamiliar. Anyway, I wish you and your family and fellow TWC co-workers the best for the holidays.

I have no relationship whatsoever with TWC - never have - I only have issues when people such as yourself decide to bash and bash while refusing to use the same standard for ALL similar companies. As I originally stated, I thought TWC was far behind Comcast until I spent several hours to lay out the entire systems side by side - and then found that my assumption was incorrect.

You have not done your homework and just bashed and bashed - with no basis - only personal opinion that is not rooted in truth.

No matter what anyone thinks of me and my style, I am not dumb enough to keep arguing an incorrect point if the truth can be shown as something else - and luckily, I am willing to admit if I screw up and not do it tongue in cheek - try it sometime.

No matter what anyone thinks of me and my style, I am not dumb enough to keep arguing an incorrect point if the truth can be shown as something else - and luckily, I am willing to admit if I screw up and not do it tongue in cheek - try it sometime.

Hope you read my post just above your last one.

Hope you read my post just above your last one.

yes, and your point?

You still going to argue in one of your points that the cable companies are protecting the public from the high costs of the NFL Network ?

That's proved to be a lie that they let the public believe is the truth. The reason as it turns out is that they are holding a grudge about not getting the NFL:ST - plain and simple childish temper tantrum BS by them.

I don't think we'll (Albany) get the simulcast in HD.

Actually, Albany will not get the Giants @ Redskins game at all OTA. Only two OTA stations will simulcast the game, some Washington DC station, and WNBC from NYC. So if your cable company in Albany doesn't carry NFLN and you can't pick up WNBC your SOL.

You still going to argue in one of your points that the cable companies are protecting the public from the high costs of the NFL Network ?

That's proved to be a lie that they let the public believe is the truth. The reason as it turns out is that they are holding a grudge about not getting the NFL:ST - plain and simple childish temper tantrum BS by them.

That may be your truth, or that which you wish to believe, but it has no basis in reality. The reason TWC gave is correct: they are not going to knuckle under to the extortionist demands of the NFL for this marginal product. They're holding the line, thank goodness. As someone who doesn't want to see my cable rates rise for this channel (and who believes the whole concept of the NFL telecasting their own games is as bogus as Thursday night games in the first place), I believe they're fighting the good fight (for once). Bravo to TWC.

So, now you are separating out just TWC as a divine light in this now that Cablevision has come to admit their reasons: http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/ny-spnfltv135013922dec13,0,2351327.story

I find no foundation for that logic.

What makes TWC different than Cablevision ?

As far as I can tell, throughout this entire Thread they've been paired together.

Has there been a giant rift that's suddenly opened between TWC and Cablevision motives in all this ?

OK Could someone then explain to me why TWC is so into holding the line for $.70 a month for NFLN but will increase my overall cable bill in Jan $4.00 a month for increased service? Why is that OK? $1.00 of that is an increase in my DVR HD box rental! Plus I am losing a channel INHD2 that is part of a $6.95 package with no replacement to that package or decrease in the price of the package.

OK Could someone then explain to me why TWC is so into holding the line for $.70 a month for NFLN but will increase my overall cable bill in Jan $4.00 a month for increased service? Why is that OK? $1.00 of that is an increase in my DVR HD box rental! Plus I am losing a channel INHD2 that is part of a $6.95 package with no replacement to that package or decrease in the price of the package.

Exactly.

But, you must remember-- TWC needs to increase your bill so they can pay for their lawsuits. They are suing DirectTV and getting sued by AT&T.

OK Could someone then explain to me why TWC is so into holding the line for $.70 a month for NFLN but will increase my overall cable bill in Jan $4.00 a month for increased service? Why is that OK? $1.00 of that is an increase in my DVR HD box rental! Plus I am losing a channel INHD2 that is part of a $6.95 package with no replacement to that package or decrease in the price of the package.

Heck that's nothing. I just got a letter from Wide Open West the other day raising rates in 2007 by $6.00/mo. I also pay an additional $9.99 a month for the HDPak that includes NFLN-HD with NO LIVE GAMES. We still don't get ESPN2HD or INHD.

I have no relationship whatsoever with TWC - never have - I only have issues when people such as yourself decide to bash and bash while refusing to use the same standard for ALL similar companies. As I originally stated, I thought TWC was far behind Comcast until I spent several hours to lay out the entire systems side by side - and then found that my assumption was incorrect.

You have not done your homework and just bashed and bashed - with no basis - only personal opinion that is not rooted in truth.

No matter what anyone thinks of me and my style, I am not dumb enough to keep arguing an incorrect point if the truth can be shown as something else - and luckily, I am willing to admit if I screw up and not do it tongue in cheek - try it sometime.

OK, now you've really hurt me. You are no longer one of my best friends.

Sorry I mistook you for a TWC employee. I thought I read somewhere that you were, but I clearly did not do my homework. They should be so lucky to have employees as dedicated as you are to their cause.

Just curious ... what do you think of the NFL's offer for a free week to TWC and Cablevision? Do you think they will take them up on it? Why/why not?

Part of

So, it was not all about the high price of the NFL Network as some here would have us believe !

Most of us called this from the beginning.

Sorry but I think that's just spin. First, it wouldn't be enough to match the price since D* has been the NFL's partner and deserves some credit for the past relationship. Second, the NFL has already admitted that they don't want the wide distribution of cable becuase it could hurt the ratings of their OTA partners.

Dolan is just bitter. This is still all about money.

The Business of TV
Operators Shrug at NFL Network Offer
By R. Thomas Umstead, Multichannel News December 13, 2006

Time Warner Cable Wednesday punted the NFL Network’s six-day free preview offer back to the network with several options that would include basic-tier carriage of the Dec. 28 Rutgers-Kansas State Texas Bowl game.

Responding to the NFL Network’s free preview offer made yesterday to New York area Time Warner Cable and Cablevision systems, the MSO said it could not offer on its basic tier the network’s full free preview programming slate – which includes live coverage of the Dec. 29 Minnesota/Texas Tech Insight Bowl – as part of its digital tier due to a lack of channel capacity.

Instead, Time Warner -- in a letter to the 41 million subscriber network -- said is willing to offer the Texas Bowl on a stand alone basis to its basic subscribers or the full free preview lineup on its digital tier.

Cablevision said it would only make the Rutgers game available to all of its basic cable customers as part of the free preview.

An NFL Network spokesman, however, declined comment on whether it would allow either MSO to offer the game on a stand-alone basis.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6399794.html?display=Breaking+News

OK, now you've really hurt me. You are no longer one of my best friends.

Sorry I mistook you for a TWC employee. I thought I read somewhere that you were, but I clearly did not do my homework. They should be so lucky to have employees as dedicated as you are to their cause.


Again, do you have an issue reading what I posted? I stated that I had the same feelings as you - but instead of just posting on the internet as you do, I actually decided to lay it out - evidence that was beyond a reasonable doubt that any blind person could see.

However, it didn't work out that way, as I also pointed out. So again, instead of constantly bashing, spend several hours and lay out your entire cable system and the holy Comcast system of your choice - and see how they REALLY compare with ALL CHANNELS in the picture.

Otherwise, you are just spouting off with no facts to back your assertions up.



Just curious ... what do you think of the NFL's offer for a free week to TWC and Cablevision? Do you think they will take them up on it? Why/why not?

That's already been answered by the company's themselves.

As I have been involved in many programming decisions, I believe TWC is making the right decision.

1) Its unfair to throw a channel on and then take it off. As most customers do not know anything about the NFL network, why put it on and snatch it away a week later? That adds to more toadfannc not understanding the reason why it was done.

2) TWC cannot control the content during the free preview. If I were NFL Networks and TWC did go for it, I would be running crawls, banners and ads telling the customers to call the cable company and demand they keep the channel on. It's very stupid to allow your "competitor" to shoot you with your own gun. Simply stated, its the reason why Police Officers are trained not to give up their gun to a suspect.

And before you go comparing this preview with SHO and HBO free preview weekends, remember that SHO and HBO are premium services only that can be subbed to during or after the preview. NFL cannot be put on as a premium.

3) It's over the holidays. Simply stated, EVERY COMPANY IN AMERICA has people taking time off trying to get their vacation and sick days out of the way. TWC is no different than any other company in america in this regards. Why create extra work for something that has the potential to screw up engineering wise with a skeleton staff? They already have enough to do with the demise of inhd2 and the MANY satellite feeds (ESPN et al) that are moving to digital megapipe at the first of the year (Search C-Band info if you want more info on the MANY channels moving over). There is no reason to get distracted on a preview while trying to prepare for the change over on the real channels you need to deliver.

4)As simplistic as this sounds, who to say that every TWC system even has the capability to receive the channel? Who's to say they all have extra feeds lines from that bird? Who's to say they have extra receivers that will work with the NFL Networks feed or Encryption? Who's to say they have extra mpeg encoders or even QAM space for the channel? Though it has been reported that NFL uses Motorola Digicipher 2 encryption, it has not been said if they use Megapipe or not - which most channels are moving to - so its safe to assume the NFL might be as well. The DSR-4400MD is needed for this and each DSR-4400MD is custom for the SPECIFIC SERVICE. Thus, TWC would need a custom DSR-4400MD for the NFL. Even if you have a spare DSR-4400MD, it must be sent away to Motorola for a $500 fee to reconfigure it for that specific service and specifications. Then another $500 fee to convert it back again (plus shipping both ways).Again, I don't know that particular part to be the fact of Distribution in MegaPipe, but it certainly is better than 50-50.

5) How would people even know the games are there? A terrible thing happens with no promotion - - - - nothing. I certainly would not expect to see Bowl Games on NFL Network. In fact, I will be honest and state that I had no idea that was the fact until the last few days - and I consider myself to know just a little bit more than the average TV viewer.

So, thats why if I were making the call, I would pass.

But, luckily for most TWC and Cablevision Subs, I am not making the call :D

Skyreports:

CABLE -- The American Cable Association created a new website to encourage cable subscribers to demand "Sports Choice Now" from the NFL Network. The site http://www.sportschoicenow.org provides a direct link for consumers to tell Congress how the NFL Network "has denied them any choice in receiving NFL Network programming." The site also provides video, a 'myths vs. facts' reader, and current press clips criticizing the network for trying to charge all cable subs for its NFL games.

OK Could someone then explain to me why TWC is so into holding the line for $.70 a month for NFLN but will increase my overall cable bill in Jan $4.00 a month for increased service? Why is that OK? $1.00 of that is an increase in my DVR HD box rental! Plus I am losing a channel INHD2 that is part of a $6.95 package with no replacement to that package or decrease in the price of the package.

Real simple. The channel you do get usually have an annual increase built in - or an amount based on inflation - so the cable company - yes, every cable company - pays more each year for the product.

If the prices seem out of proportion (in either direction), thats what they negotiate when the contract is up to get it back in line.

Again, the best news for consumers is increased competition - because that will force the MSOs to keep their profits razor thin to be competitive.

Verizon and NFL Network have teamed up to offer Verizon customers live game broadcasts over the Internet, starting this week with 49ers vs. Seahawks and Cowboys vs. Falcons.

Real simple. The channel you do get usually have an annual increase built in - or an amount based on inflation - so the cable company - yes, every cable company - pays more each year for the product.

If the prices seem out of proportion (in either direction), thats what they negotiate when the contract is up to get it back in line.

Again, the best news for consumers is increased competition - because that will force the MSOs to keep their profits razor thin to be competitive.

At the risk of being accused of bashing TWC ...

I would hardly call TWC's profits "razor thin":

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/19/news/companies/pluggedin_mehta_timewarnercable.fortune/index.htm

This is what makes the NFL Network fight so non-sensical. OK, so the NFL is trying to gauge by charging all subs with a non-sports tier placement. But, would that $.70 even be measurable in this kind of whopping profit, on top of the increase in all of our 2007 rates? I have the feeling that the 15% increase that we are seeing is more than just keeping up with inflation and annual programming increases. How does that $.70/sub compare with channels that currently occupy standard/expanded digital placement, like CNN or Food Network or Golf Channel or Speed Channel, etc., etc.? It may be more, sure-- but, the NFL is the most popular American media sport by far. Again, I must qualify this by saying that I am biased as a football fan who wants as much NFL programming as possible. And, yes, I realize that satellite has positioned itself for fans like me.

And, I'm not sure what increasing programming cost has to do with jacking up the DVR rental fee.

I'm sure we'd all agree that more land-based competition will definitely shake some of the "pragmatic" cable operators. That is unless Congress gets in the way.

Yet another one of those long Green Bay Packers stories - one of the hot areas of the Country for this debate:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=541999

For me though, this quote was most interesting:

"Seth Palansky, an NFL Network spokesman, said the network had signed up about 45 new cable companies nationwide in the past few weeks. He declined to say how much the network was asking for rights. "We stick to saying it's the cost of a Madison, Wisconsin, movie ticket for a year.

* There are plenty of good quotes in the story for both sides.

Be careful toddfannc -- you have spoken against HDFA -- he will come out from behind the curtain and send you back to Kansas and you shall have no cable! Seriously nice post!

I have an idea for NFL Network.

NO not air the super Bowl EXCLUSIVELY there.

Produce the telecast. NFL network people NFL Network graphics and such CBS would just be the outlet it airs on like ESPN on ABC.

NFL could also have a few rebroadcasts of the game.

The NFL owns the rights anyway, They are allowed to show REPLAYS of any game they want including the superbowl games. CBS, FOX, etc just pay for the rights to broadcast the live games.

Watch the disclaimer for any sport, this production is property of (insert sport here) any telecast without the approval of (insert sport here) or its broadcasters... You get the point.

I'm confused. I have seen the light and have tried to make that clear. Your posts are implying that I'm being sarcastic. I think TWC is awesome-- you have opened my eyes to what a customer oriented company they are. Hey, I don't know why AT&T would go to the trouble of suing TWC. Don't they know that Time Warner cares about its customers and AT&T's too for that matter. Thank goodness they are protecting us from the NFL. I know ... with Time Warner's new and exciting emphasis on consumer protection-- they should expand from cable/internet/digital phone into the home security business. Watch out Brinks.

But, you know, I don't want to continue this tense discourse. As a matter of fact, I now consider you one of my closest friends- we are bonded by our mutual telecommunications expertise. My only regret is that I do not have your vast vocabulary, using big words like "anal" of which I am totally unfamiliar. Anyway, I wish you and your family and fellow TWC co-workers the best for the holidays.
You impressed me Toad, You actually had no spelling and/or grammar errors, I guess the english language does comes easy when you DO NOT believe what you are writing. There was no passion in that post at all. Get back to the powerfully emotional responses when you think you are right, those I read with belief. Sarcasm is an ugly fit with you. Don't back down write what you believe. People can be wrong and admit it. But you lose respect when you back down. That goes for all of you!!!!

OK Could someone then explain to me why TWC is so into holding the line for $.70 a month for NFLN but will increase my overall cable bill in Jan $4.00 a month for increased service? Why is that OK? $1.00 of that is an increase in my DVR HD box rental! Plus I am losing a channel INHD2 that is part of a $6.95 package with no replacement to that package or decrease in the price of the package.
Not to go off topic, but remeber first it is a business first, they are in it to make money.
The good, if you have had to go to any Cable store recently. The Lines are fast and short. Upgrading is faster then it ever has been. More building for easier access. To be honest I haven't had a major outage or problem with cable since the northeast blackout.
The bad, they are increasing revenues with out giving major channel changes. 2 new HD channels in a year(full time sport channels not included because we were still getting the game) More building mean more of our fees go to keeping them operational. Don't even get me started on the $8.95 extra for a DVR box. On top of the 7.95 extra already charged for any extra boxe.

Basically what I am saying here is that there are 2 sides to the whole picture but Look at the whole picture first. but the bottom line is what matters. That line is not as black and white as we would want it, but all companies are having increases this year. The only ones who benefit are new customers and that is something that needs to be changed. They need to start giving discounts to long time customers. But I know that is a pipe dream.

At the risk of being accused of bashing TWC ...

I would hardly call TWC's profits "razor thin":

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/19/news/companies/pluggedin_mehta_timewarnercable.fortune/index.htm

This is what makes the NFL Network fight so non-sensical. OK, so the NFL is trying to gauge by charging all subs with a non-sports tier placement. But, would that $.70 even be measurable in this kind of whopping profit, on top of the increase in all of our 2007 rates? I have the feeling that the 15% increase that we are seeing is more than just keeping up with inflation and annual programming increases. How does that $.70/sub compare with channels that currently occupy standard/expanded digital placement, like CNN or Food Network or Golf Channel or Speed Channel, etc., etc.? It may be more, sure-- but, the NFL is the most popular American media sport by far. Again, I must qualify this by saying that I am biased as a football fan who wants as much NFL programming as possible. And, yes, I realize that satellite has positioned itself for fans like me.

And, I'm not sure what increasing programming cost has to do with jacking up the DVR rental fee.

I'm sure we'd all agree that more land-based competition will definitely shake some of the "pragmatic" cable operators. That is unless Congress gets in the way.

Ok let me get this straight TWC a division of TW corp, is making a good profit and people are complaining. Understandable, but short sighted. More of the "what have you done for me lately" Crowd complaining with pitch forks. That article is showing how fast a big profit can equal a loss. How does a huge corporation rely on a cable company that only makes 22% of it's revenue but bring in 44% of it's profits. Most of the "profits" goes to bail out the other 78% of revenue makers that are in the red.

Also If I recall correctly. These increases are following years of losses by TWC and other cable cos. When they did their upgrade to DTV most companies were in the red, plus the direct competition from the Sat comp didn't help. But now they are making a profit and people are calling foul. I don't understand. Why is it so wrong for a company to make a profit? What HDFAN is saying is correct they will have to trim profits to compete when FIOS is in full swing because they need to compete with them. I know I am cosidering it, but I garranty they give me a good offer to stay. Plus like the article said they have to upgrade the Adelphia service also. Buildings and signals, that won't come cheap. Expanding never does. From what I am reading it seems like people perfer TWC to be in the red. Why can't people understand that a profit is always good news? With a profit, a company will look into more avenues to increase and improve services. Not cut them. Despite the bad experiences most of us might have had with a CSR, There is always room for improvements, but profits will lead to better training for these same CSR's.

You actually had no spelling and/or grammer errors
What does grammer mean?

Almost 28 years in cyberspace and its STILL funny. :D

You impressed me Toad, You actually had no spelling and/or grammer errors

Almost 28 years in cyberspace and its STILL funny. :D
Hello, yuo see I am being passionnnate , hence the erroe.

Plus the spell check didn't catch that one. HA HA. Fixed

At the risk of being accused of bashing TWC ...

I would hardly call TWC's profits "razor thin":

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/19/news/companies/pluggedin_mehta_timewarnercable.fortune/index.htm

This is what makes the NFL Network fight so non-sensical. OK, so the NFL is trying to gauge by charging all subs with a non-sports tier placement. But, would that $.70 even be measurable in this kind of whopping profit, on top of the increase in all of our 2007 rates?


If you had not forgotten how to do 3rd grade math, even you could figure that out.

To begin with, I don't think your numbers are right - but to make you happy, I'll use your numbers.

First, you cannot say that is profit as that is stated as NET INCOME - NOT NET PROFIT - THERE IS A DIFFERENCE....but again, we are using your sources as quoted.

TWC 2005 net income was almost $1.3 billion according to the url.

12,000,000 TWC Subs
.70 a month
---------------

$8,400,000 a month to NFL Networks
x12 Months
--------------
$108,000,000 - or roughly 9% of the net income from sources you supplied would go directly to NFL networks. I'm even more on TWC's side after that number! No thanks NFL!!!!!

Second, you don't know what their Gross Revenue is - so its impossible once again for you to say that the profits aren't "razor thin" as you don't know what the number is.

Next ?



And, I'm not sure what increasing programming cost has to do with jacking up the DVR rental fee.

I'm sure we'd all agree that more land-based competition will definitely shake some of the "pragmatic" cable operators. That is unless Congress gets in the way.

Gas prices for repairs and hard drive replacements - Hard Drives often fail. That's it in a nutshell.

Also the requirement for HDMI/IEEE1394 on every STB drove up the price of the units substantially.

As stated, competition will be your best friend for keeping prices down and pushing capacity on the system to stay competitive.

Obviously non-NFL fans will root for TWC and football fans will side with the NFL. Kind of a silly debate.

Obviously non-NFL fans will root for TWC and football fans will side with the NFL. Kind of a silly debate.

Actually, I'm as big a football fan as there is I guess, and I'm rooting for TWC to hold the line on this. We don't need another NFL game on Thursday nights (the home team fans really love that idea. :rolleyes: ), and the NFL doesn't need to be broadcasting its own games anyway. There's just no burning need for any of it. The NFL needs to worry about overexposure; looks like they're just itching to kill their golden goose through oversaturation.

not true, I love football. I need to love it because I am a JET fan. Not many good years in their history. For me to stay tuned in. But I am against a league that over estimates it product. They are trying to make extra money off a product that was doing just fine by it's self. Networks pay for rights they broadcast and we enjoy. That was the process and we were all happy. Everyone makes money. But now the NFL wants to get it's feet wet and broadcast some games and they try to sell them for a price that is even more expensive then what the networks pay per game. This is the reason I respect what the "against" companies are doing. The NFL formed a 8 game schedule that would have been shown across the country for free in the first place and now they want us to pay for it. Pay a lot. Like one of the article above said. That 70 cents per would put them in the top five for cost per channel. If they(TWC & other) cave it would send a ripple effect that we will never get out of. Then this company would want more, then this one and so on.
You are an upstart channel, with a great product, but for only 8 days a year. To try to outprice your 8 games to be more expensive then the 17+ games the other nets broadcast is not good business sense. Even if they aren't as expensive the price shouldn't even be close.

Here is my idea:

a)systems that carry NFL as part of extended basic can pay 25 cents per sub per month.

b)systems that have NFL on a sports tier can pay 50 cents per month off season and $1.15 per month on season (Sept/Jan)

Systems in select areas (probably those with CBS and/or Fox OnOs can air ALL THE Sunday afternoon games with ads insered from the local stations. (For example I buy a local ad for a Pats game on WBZ-DT. My ad would also air at the appropiate tiem on all the other CBS games airing on the cable.

It would sort of be like Sunday ticket BUT THERE WOULD BE NO EXTRA CHARGE TO THE HOME VIEWER!

BOSTON HAS both CBS And Fox OnOs SO IF THIS WERE TO COME TO PASS,WE WOULD GET all games FOR free! :)

Here is my idea:

a)systems that carry NFL as part of extended basic can pay 25 cents per sub per month.

b)systems that have NFL on a sports tier can pay 50 cents per month off season and $1.15 per month on season (Sept/Jan)

Systems in select areas (probably those with CBS and/or Fox OnOs can air ALL THE Sunday afternoon games with ads insered from the local stations. (For example I buy a local ad for a Pats game on WBZ-DT. My ad would also air at the appropiate tiem on all the other CBS games airing on the cable.

It would sort of be like Sunday ticket BUT THERE WOULD BE NO EXTRA CHARGE TO THE HOME VIEWER!

BOSTON HAS both CBS And Fox OnOs SO IF THIS WERE TO COME TO PASS,WE WOULD GET all games FOR free! :)

How would you suggest they work doubleheaders? Does only one network get to shw their full slate of games or do both networks get to show their games thus diminishing the value of CBS's and FOX's contracts.

Would this be a PPV service like Sunday Ticket?

How would the NFL recoup the costs of not having an exclusive contract?

I question the fanaticism of anybody that sits by while their cable company adds fees for Lifetime Movies, Lifetime Real Women, Logo, Oxygen, etc, etc. - then decide to draw the line at the NFL Network.

I question the fanaticism of anybody that sits by while their cable company adds fees for Lifetime Movies, Lifetime Real Women, Logo, Oxygen, etc, etc. - then decide to draw the line at the NFL Network.

Well, the NFL deal has had a lot of publicity, and the requested 70 cent increase is outrageous. I don't know anyone who actually keeps up with all the "junk" channels they add. They just magically "appear" with no advance warning. And what choice do we have anyway, if we don't want to putz with satellite? Even if they knuckle under to the NFL and then bump up their monthly bills accordingly, we'll just have to bend over, or switch. For me personally, I'm through with DBS; been there, done that, got the t-shirt, burned it.

I question the fanaticism of anybody that sits by while their cable company adds fees for Lifetime Movies, Lifetime Real Women, Logo, Oxygen, etc, etc. - then decide to draw the line at the NFL Network.

I dont disagree - but then again, those didn't want to be the single handedly in the Top 5 most expensive channel on cable for essentially 24 hours of programming A YEAR.

btw, its not the NFL, but I was watching KABC-DT News at 11am this morning and they announced the Dodger were increasing their Season Ticket price 14% - 40%

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=sports&id=4851839

""Our goal is to always keep Dodger Stadium affordable for all of our fans," chief operating officer Marty Greenspun said in a statement. "

And they have yet to announce single game ticket prices!!!!!

OK, using the same rationale, what are Dodger fans getting out of an increase up to 40% on Season Tickets?

Compared to this, the TWC increase looks like a bargain!!!!!!

Major difference -- I don't have to go to a Dodger game. If I want to watch TV I have to use TW. No dish where I live or OTA. It's TW or nothing so your "apples to oranges" sucks.

How would you suggest they work doubleheaders? Does only one network get to shw their full slate of games or do both networks get to show their games thus diminishing the value of CBS's and FOX's contracts.

Would this be a PPV service like Sunday Ticket?

How would the NFL recoup the costs of not having an exclusive contract?

It would sort of be a whole new ballgame. East coast games would generally mainly be at 1 West coast games would generally mainly be at 4

Four games would air on the main channels with the other games on special NFL channels on digital cable. If the home team was playing at home,the other network would not show a game at its time.

I would have it for FREE. Let the commercials sell the games :) The local stations would have the ad time for the extra games on the special NFL channels in each market. It would be run BY THE NETWORKS which is why I would restrict it to OnO markets.
\

games would have to be UNENCRYPTED which means they would be offered on the $10 basic tier (unless one lacks a QAM tuner or HD or digital box)

I would probably start it in 480i widescreen to start then going HD as the bandwidth became available.

I would have it for FREE. Let the commercials sell the games :) The local stations would have the ad time for the extra games on the special NFL channels in each market. It would be run BY THE NETWORKS which is why I would restrict it to OnO markets.
I see you have left reality. Why would the NFL leave their current setup which is a cash cow for them?

First, you cannot say that is profit as that is stated as NET INCOME - NOT NET PROFIT - THERE IS A DIFFERENCE

No, there isn't a difference. I've been an accountant/financial analyst for 15 years-- Net Income and Net Profit are the same thing.

TWC 2005 net income was almost $1.3 billion according to the url.

Again, Net Income IS Net Profit

12,000,000 TWC Subs
.70 a month
---------------

$8,400,000 a month to NFL Networks
x12 Months
--------------
$108,000,000 - or roughly 9% of the net income from sources you supplied would go directly to NFL networks. I'm even more on TWC's side after that number! No thanks NFL!!!!!

By the way, $8,400,000 x 12 is $100,800,000. Not $108,000,000. Also you are only calculating the effect of the added expense to Time Warner's Net Income (or Net Profit). Net Income (or Net Profit) by definition is total revenue less total expenses. You must also factor in the additional revenue Time Warner will receive by carrying NFL Network. And don't kid yourself, Time Warner would increase everyone's rates if they picked up NFL Network. If they raise everyone's rate by $0.70, it's break even on their bottom line. Of course this is overly simplified as there are additional expenses beyond what Time Warner would pay the NFL. But there are also additional revenue streams from it too (the NFL offered Time Warner advertising time on the channel).

No, there isn't a difference. I've been an accountant/financial analyst for 15 years-- Net Income and Net Profit are the same thing.



Again, Net Income IS Net Profit



By the way, $8,400,000 x 12 is $100,800,000. Not $108,000,000. Also you are only calculating the effect of the added expense to Time Warner's Net Income (or Net Profit). Net Income (or Net Profit) by definition is total revenue less total expenses. You must also factor in the additional revenue Time Warner will receive by carrying NFL Network. And don't kid yourself, Time Warner would increase everyone's rates if they picked up NFL Network. If they raise everyone's rate by $0.70, it's break even. Of course this is overly simplified as there are additional expenses beyond what Time Warner would pay the NFL. But there are also additional revenue streams from it too (the NFL offered Time Warner advertising time on the channel).

Better watch out, bro. He'll start calling you names.

I can take it. ;) To be honest, the whole NFL/Cable issue doesn't bug me too much either way (I'd love to have NFL Network, but missing the 8 games won't kill me). But being a financial analyst I just couldn't let the financial inaccuracies go. :)

Time Warner is gonna get itself shot in the foot. There are so many other services out there for pay-tv they won't last long not getting it.

This reminds me of TWO things, ESPN-HD's coverage on cable. Time Warner wanted to negotiate the carriage contract for ALL their networks, or something like that.

And...

It also reminds me of the carriage of ABC's coverage when I first moved to Tampa. Time Warner and Disney had it out and thee supreme court had to get involved, or congress, I can't remember. They issued a type of "Stay" before thee end of the day that gave the two companies time to bicker it out.

Corporate egos.. What a farce..

You'd figure they would want to make the customer happy, NO, they just want to bicker in each others faces while they lose customers. Well, I am sure many of us and a lot of J6P users just don't care, they can lose more money. Frankly, I am glad. I think the cable co's have had their days, and now we will see all the other technologies coming together to put cable in it's place.

Tony

Major difference -- I don't have to go to a Dodger game. If I want to watch TV I have to use TW. No dish where I live or OTA. It's TW or nothing so your "apples to oranges" sucks.

You don't have to watch TV just like you don't have to go to a Dodger's game - so its apples to apples bud.

No, there isn't a difference. I've been an accountant/financial analyst for 15 years-- Net Income and Net Profit are the same thing.



Again, Net Income IS Net Profit



By the way, $8,400,000 x 12 is $100,800,000. Not $108,000,000. Also you are only calculating the effect of the added expense to Time Warner's Net Income (or Net Profit). Net Income (or Net Profit) by definition is total revenue less total expenses. You must also factor in the additional revenue Time Warner will receive by carrying NFL Network. And don't kid yourself, Time Warner would increase everyone's rates if they picked up NFL Network. If they raise everyone's rate by $0.70, it's break even on their bottom line. Of course this is overly simplified as there are additional expenses beyond what Time Warner would pay the NFL. But there are also additional revenue streams from it too (the NFL offered Time Warner advertising time on the channel).

I was under the impression that the formula had changed under standard accounting procedures that long term depreciation was taken after Net Income and before Net Profit - but that's why I leave accounting to the bean counters - to try and keep up with the changes.

So I will be happy to give you that if you are an accountant - I can't argue it.

And I get a C because I atleast knew the formula and carried the number wrong in my head - while Toad got an F for not even knowing the forumla. Such is life.

Now, please look at the links toad supplied and give us the Profit Margins for Time Warner Cable to support his statements of razor thin margins.

Also, I see you admit that TWC will increase everyone's rate above and beyond what they currently pay to fund the NFL Network on the basic tier - something toad hasn't been willing to admit - and I do not disagree.

However, the NFL says that is not true - that Dish and Directv have NOT CHARGED CONSUMERS for the NFL Network.



http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/8456/nflnwg4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



Now atleast you have the sense to say you don't believe that.

Can we get a show of hands of everyone who believes it though?

Time Warner is gonna get itself shot in the foot. There are so many other services out there for pay-tv they won't last long not getting it.

This reminds me of TWO things, ESPN-HD's coverage on cable. Time Warner wanted to negotiate the carriage contract for ALL their networks, or something like that.

And...

It also reminds me of the carriage of ABC's coverage when I first moved to Tampa. Time Warner and Disney had it out and thee supreme court had to get involved, or congress, I can't remember. They issued a type of "Stay" before thee end of the day that gave the two companies time to bicker it out.

Corporate egos.. What a farce..

You'd figure they would want to make the customer happy, NO, they just want to bicker in each others faces while they lose customers. Well, I am sure many of us and a lot of J6P users just don't care, they can lose more money. Frankly, I am glad. I think the cable co's have had their days, and now we will see all the other technologies coming together to put cable in it's place.

Tony


Your facts are very fuzzy and incorrect, but humorous, none the less.

ESPN wanted to negotiate carriage for all their channels - not TWC - just as they do with every cable company - new and old.

Interesting enough, TWC believes it has a current agreement to carry ESPN2 and Disney doesn't.

If the cable companies go down, so be it. It just means you will end up doing what many have wanted for years - you can pay for the live feed of the Football games and those that don't care won't.

And I assure you that the NFL Network won't be priced at any .70 cents a month - or close to $3 for the main ESPN channel alone when that happens.

Now, please look at the links toad supplied and give us the Profit Margins for Time Warner Cable to support his statements of razor thin margins.

Profit Margin is Net Income (or Net Profit) / Gross Revenue. I don't remember seeing TWCs Gross Revenue quoted in the link so Profit Margin isn't something we can calculate from that article. The number shouldn't be hard to find, though.

And I get a C because I atleast knew the formula and carried the number wrong in my head - while Toad got an F for not even knowing the forumla. Such is life.


Are you 6 yrs old? Oh yeah, well, my Dad can beat up your Dad. Get a grip.


Now, please look at the links toad supplied and give us the Profit Margins for Time Warner Cable to support his statements of razor thin margins.

For the record, "razor thin" were your words- not mine. I believe the word I used for TWC profits (as supported by the article I referenced and supported by this accounting professional) was "whopping".

I am so sick of getting attacked by the likes of you every time I point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency of TWC ... an opinion shared by many on this forum. Their stance on the NFL Network situation is just another example. I agree that the NFL is greedy and that sports programming costs, in general, are out of control. But, Time Warner and the other cable companies prey on consumer ignorance and it's forums like this where people can at least become more aware of what their cable company is doing or not doing. As for me, I'm ditching TWC as soon as all of the Raleigh locals are up on Dish HD. I can't wait. Then you can pick someone else out to sling a little mud to every time an opinion is given that is not exactly like yours. Grow up.

You don't have to watch TV just like you don't have to go to a Dodger's game - so its apples to apples bud.


No you are wrong again --I have many choices for baseball. I can watch little league, HS, college, adult leagues. etc and never have to pay Dodger prices to see baseball. If I wish to watch TV I have to pay TW where I live. I have no choices. I cannot have a dish or an antenna. We get nothing with rabbit ears inside -- tried it once to see how we would be during hurricanes and got nothing. So when you jump off your pompous hobby horse be careful what you land in!

No you are wrong again --I have many choices for baseball. I can watch little league, HS, college, adult leagues. etc and never have to pay Dodger prices to see baseball. If I wish to watch TV I have to pay TW where I live. I have no choices. I cannot have a dish or an antenna. We get nothing with rabbit ears inside -- tried it once to see how we would be during hurricanes and got nothing. So when you jump off your pompous hobby horse be careful what you land in!

lol....again, you have just proven my point.

You have the choice never to go to a Dodgers game...which is your choice.

You have the choice never to watch TV.....but you make a choice too do so as well.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights are you given the right to watch TV.

It's a 100% apples to apples comparison.

Oh well, at least they're funny..

lol....again, you have just proven my point.

You have the choice never to go to a Dodgers game...which is your choice.

You have the choice never to watch TV.....but you make a choice too do so as well.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights are you given the right to watch TV.

It's a 100% apples to apples comparison.

No, it's not, fercryinoutloud. :rolleyes: If you're not a baseball fan, you couldn't care less about going to a Dodgers game. Even if you are, there are the minor leagues where ticket and concession prices are far cheaper, and any number of other sports for your sporting spectator diversion. But nearly everybody watches TV, and cable companies have local monopolies. It's not even close to being an "apples to apples" comparison, sorry. Take your lumps on this lame attempt at an analogy and move on. Back to the topic would be good.

Are you 6 yrs old? Oh yeah, well, my Dad can beat up your Dad. Get a grip.



Nice comeback for showing your failure to understand how to multiply and divide which is taught in 3rd grade. Too bad you can't understand "complex" formula like that, lol.




For the record, "razor thin" were your words- not mine. I believe the word I used for TWC profits (as supported by the article I referenced and supported by this accounting professional) was "whopping".


As you are well aware, I said that MSO competition was best for everyone - you and I - because it would keep mso's to razor thin margins to stay competitive.

We are just at the beginning of that competition - not well into it.

But again, regardless - you again make a giant assumption that that figure is not razor thin - which it may or may not be - but you do not have or supply the facts in your posts or url to support that it is not.




I am so sick of getting attacked by the likes of you every time I point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency of TWC ... an opinion shared by many on this forum. Their stance on the NFL Network situation is just another example. I agree that the NFL is greedy and that sports programming costs, in general, are out of control. But, Time Warner and the other cable companies prey on consumer ignorance and it's forums like this where people can at least become more aware of what their cable company is doing or not doing. As for me, I'm ditching TWC as soon as all of the Raleigh locals are up on Dish HD. I can't wait. Then you can pick someone else out to sling a little mud to every time an opinion is given that is not exactly like yours. Grow up.

lol - you are sick of getting attacked because you cannot support you opinion with FACTS and I point that out.

It can only be concluded that you have a personal vendetta against TWC and will say whatever without the facts to back you up as you constantly do it and do nothing but post unsupported opinions.

If you choose not to deal with facts, then it clear its personal - so if you are unwilling to atleast support your posts with simple facts (instead of questions), its obvious you don't care what the truth is - and thus you have brought this to the personal realm.

Interesting when someone points out a mistake I made when moving a sequence of 0 and 8 from my brain to my fingers, I accept it and move on.

However, you have an ego that never allow you to be proven wrong even when the facts also prove you are.

Think about it.

I wonder how much the next Cable bill will rise ?

In the middle of all this wrangling about the NFL Network, they've just announced http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Symbol=US:CMCSA&Feed=ACBJ&Date=20061215&ID=6280401

Arts & Entertainment HD,
MTVHD,
Universal HD,
and * SportsNet NY

SportsNet was launched by Time Warner Inc. and Comcast Corp., and Sterling Entertainment Enterprises.

= = =

Strange timing on this !

I wonder how much the next Cable bill will rise ?

In the middle of all this wrangling about the NFL Network, they've just announced http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Symbol=US:CMCSA&Feed=ACBJ&Date=20061215&ID=6280401

Arts & Entertainment HD,
MTVHD,
Universal HD,
and * SportsNet NY

SportsNet was launched by Time Warner Inc. and Comcast Corp., and Sterling Entertainment Enterprises.

= = =

Strange timing on this !

They'll (all MSOs) keep adding channels, getting charged for them, and passing on those costs to us. The difference between those channels and NFLN is holding the line against those additions means standing up to Disney, NBC/Universal and Viacom - that, they won't do.

That's the hypocracy that bothers me. The networks are the real culprit, but the MSOs aren't blameless as long as they resist supporting the unbundling of channels.

That's why I'm personally rooting for the NFL over TWC ..............but Cablevision over the NFL.

That isn't good news we already get 2 of those channels in NYC(universalhd and snyhd). It would really suck if A&EHD is the channel that takes over the INHD2 spot on the HDExtra tier. It is only going to be another TNTHD with just a simialcast of the original channel. We will see how their conversion to HD goes, but a lot of people have complained about TNT hd feed. I really feel the only channel that would be worth paying extra for is ESPN2HD at least you know the will be a good amount of HD telcast during a 24 hr period.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9179363&&#post9179363

This is so funny - people that actually get NFL Network have actually decided to boycott the Thursday night games because they are unhappy with the announcers.

Just goes to prove there is no way to make Sports Fanatics happy.

That may be your truth, or that which you wish to believe, but it has no basis in reality. The reason TWC gave is correct: they are not going to knuckle under to the extortionist demands of the NFL for this marginal product. They're holding the line, thank goodness. As someone who doesn't want to see my cable rates rise for this channel (and who believes the whole concept of the NFL telecasting their own games is as bogus as Thursday night games in the first place), I believe they're fighting the good fight (for once). Bravo to TWC.

Fighting the good fight, LOL. If not passing through 40 cents to deliver another channel, but charging an extra $4 per month next year for no additional service is fighting the good fight, I hope they stop fighting soon! How much more of this "good fight" can subscribers afford!

They sure are selective in how they protect customers.

Do I have this straight? Bill up $4 for same service with proceeds directly to TWC bottom line profit......GOOD. Bill up 40 cents for a new channel.....BAD.

That sums it up. Thanks TWC! Keep up the good fight! :eek:

No, it's not, fercryinoutloud. :rolleyes: If you're not a baseball fan, you couldn't care less about going to a Dodgers game. Even if you are, there are the minor leagues where ticket and concession prices are far cheaper, and any number of other sports for your sporting spectator diversion. But nearly everybody watches TV, and cable companies have local monopolies. It's not even close to being an "apples to apples" comparison, sorry. Take your lumps on this lame attempt at an analogy and move on. Back to the topic would be good.
No its apples to apples, you don't have to watch television just as much as you don't have to go to a baseball game. Just becasue nearly everybody watches television doesn't mean you or anyone else is forced to. If you want to watch television cable is not your only choice, there is always DVDs and the Internet besides the traditional delivery methods.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9179363&&#post9179363

This is so funny - people that actually get NFL Network have actually decided to boycott the Thursday night games because they are unhappy with the announcers.

Just goes to prove there is no way to make Sports Fanatics happy.

The announcers are just plain horrible and yes they do make me shut off the game even my wife has mentioned it to me and for her to notice says it all to me she usually could care less but these 2 bozo's need to go.

I guess the rumors were true.(about the bad TV heads) I can't believe they get a game most of us won't but they want to boycott the broadcast. You can still watch it and put the radio on. A lot of Yankee fans do that because Susan Waldman is horrible. These games are usually on a sports radio netwrok and those announcers are much better.

In the middle of all this wrangling about the NFL Network, they've just announced

Arts & Entertainment HD,
MTVHD,
Universal HD,
and * SportsNet NY


Can someone tell me why this SportsNet has been picked up by TWC resulting in higher fees to me? Why doesn't this go on the sports tier? I'm a sports fan, but never watch Met games, why do I have to pay for this? Especially since I can't have NFLN because it has to go on a sports tier.

Isn't this very inconsistent?



SportsNet was launched by Time Warner Inc. and Comcast Corp., and Sterling Entertainment Enterprises.



Oh, wait a sec, they own a part of it, now I get it!

Per my original post, it sure as heck ain't about the size of my bill. It's about WHO makes the money off of me in adding channels, as this action proves.

No its apples to apples, you don't have to watch television just as much as you don't have to go to a baseball game. Just becasue nearly everybody watches television doesn't mean you or anyone else is forced to. If you want to watch television cable is not your only choice, there is always DVDs and the Internet besides the traditional delivery methods.


It's not apples to apples certainly, it's somewhere closer to oranges. A far better, albeit not perfect, comparison to TWC's service would be to the phone company, gas company or another entrenched service provider direct to the home enjoying significant barriers to entry with limited substitutes.

Sure you don't have to watch TV or can get some rabbit ears in the same way that you can get a space heater, fireplace or stay cold instead of using natural gas or a cell phone or walkie talkie instead of a land line, but like natural gas and telephones, it's a service that most consumers use in their home, and true substitutes are very limited and mostly imperfect. If you want to watch live broadcast television, which the average person in the US does to the tune of something like 4 hours a day, then your options are your entrenched cable provider, a satellite dish or rabbit ears and 4 broadcast channels. The 2nd option is not available to everyone, and the 3rd is not considered a true option for most.

The Dodgers game is a true consumer discretionary expenditure on enterainment which has literally millions of substitutes including movies, other pro, college, high school and semi-pro sporting events, concerts, theater, travel, internet, dining out, theme parks, parties, clubs, bars and tv. Even for those Dodger fans there are a numerous ways to follow and watch the team play all of its games.

My problem with this entire discussion is how TWC is considered by some to be doing a service for consumers in this dispute. As shown with the SportsNet addition, TWC is only against adding fees for niche channels if they don't directly profit from it.

Soon, most TWC customers in the northeast will have FiOS, and this will be a moot discussion. It won't be perfect out of the gate, but I'm taking my $180 RPU on cable and internet from TWC to FiOS day 1 it's available in my building. At least in an effort to win customers they are focused on innovation, responsiveness and value. We're all going to benefit, competition is good, and there isn't any now here that's for sure. It's past time for the TWC NYC monopoly to be broken.

lol....again, you have just proven my point.

You have the choice never to go to a Dodgers game...which is your choice.

You have the choice never to watch TV.....but you make a choice too do so as well.

No where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights are you given the right to watch TV.

It's a 100% apples to apples comparison.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights doesn't give me the right to get reasonably priced produce at the Piggly Wiggly either, or to not be gouged when I make long distance phone calls by a telecommunications monopoly, but the US has a set of laws enacted to ensure that anticompetive behavior doesn't prevent me from doing so.

Major League Baseball enjoys antritrust exemption bestowed by the United States Congress. They are in fact a monopoly, a government sanctioned one. In addition to the legitimate reasons mentioned by others as to why this comparison is apples and oranges, that's another one.

Competitive behavior by business and commerce in general is regulated and governed on a number of fronts in the United States by federal, state and local agencies. If your definition of "consumer choice" was the standard used by the United States, then DirectTV and Echostar would have been allowed to merge in 2002.

The option of a consumer to simply "choose" to not participate in a defined market is not considered "consumer choice" by the Federal Trade Commission, the DOJ, the FCC or the state attorneys general. And make no mistake, delivery of television is a specifically defined market. Tickets to a sporting event is in a far broader category of discretionary entertainment under their definitions for a number of very obvious reasons (even not considering the antitrust exemption applied to baseball).

Maybe it's not oranges, but it's not apples either.

Soon, most TWC customers in the northeast will have FiOS, and this will be a moot discussion. It won't be perfect out of the gate, but I'm taking my $180 RPU on cable and internet from TWC to FiOS day 1 it's available in my building. At least in an effort to win customers they are focused on innovation, responsiveness and value. We're all going to benefit, competition is good, and there isn't any now here that's for sure. It's past time for the TWC NYC monopoly to be broken.

From Fredfa's 'Hot Off the Press' thread:

The Business of TV
N.J. and FiOS TV: Perfect Together
MultiChannel News 12/15/2006

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities approved the first state-issued video-franchise agreement for Verizon Communications’ FiOS TV service Friday.

The telco said it will make FiOS TV available to about 100 New Jersey communities -- 316 communities, or 70% of the households in the state, with more to come.

Verizon added that it plans to begin marketing its service to communities in Bergen, Camden, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic and Somerset counties in the next few weeks, with additional communities in Essex, Mercer and Union counties to be added in the next couple of months. A list of communities will be announced in early January, the company said.

“With the New Jersey market now open to competition, we will soon offer this service to hundreds of thousands of consumers in about 100 communities, and it will make New Jersey one of the most competitive states in the nation,” Verizon New Jersey president Dennis Bone said in a prepared statement.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6400341

I know the nano-second FIOS comes to my NYC neighborhood (or I move somewhere were FIOS is available) I'm switching away from TWC. You know TWC is in trouble when its clients are so desperate to get away from them that they'd be willing to climb in bed with... gulp... VERIZON!!! :eek:

Can someone tell me why this SportsNet has been picked up by TWC resulting in higher fees to me? Why doesn't this go on the sports tier? I'm a sports fan, but never watch Met games, why do I have to pay for this? Especially since I can't have NFLN because it has to go on a sports tier.

Isn't this very inconsistent?



Oh, wait a sec, they own a part of it, now I get it!

Per my original post, it sure as heck ain't about the size of my bill. It's about WHO makes the money off of me in adding channels, as this action proves.

Look out, my friend. You're about to be attacked. You're not allowed to state an opinion or ask a question. You'll see.

The Business of TV
NFL Net rejects TW plan for Rutgers game
By Paul J. Gough, The Hollywood Reporter December 16, 2006

The NFL Network has said thanks, but no thanks, to Time Warner Cable's response to carry the Texas Bowl but no other part of the network on the basic cable tier.

Earlier this week the NFL Network offered its two big New York metro region holdouts Cablevision and Time Warner Cable the opportunity to carry the channel for free from Christmas Eve until the afternoon of Dec. 30. That would include the channel's telecast of the Texas Bowl, which features local favorite Rutgers against Kansas State.

Both Time Warner Cable and Cablevision jumped at the chance to carry the Texas Bowl but weren't as interested in the rest of the NFL Network, particularly on the most basic cable tier. Time Warner Cable said it would either carry the bowl game on basic or the whole free preview on digital.

In a letter to Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt, NFL Network CEO Steven M. Bornstein rejected Time Warner Cable's proposal because it didn't allow the MSO's customers a chance to watch all of the channel's programming. Bornstein wrote that the network hoped that if cable customers liked what they saw it would give "both of us an impetus to move forward and negotiate a mutually satisfactory carriage agreement."

Time Warner Cable said it couldn't provide the NFL Network a basic-cable channel for the entire free week. The NFL Network said it would look at Time Warner Cable's channels to see if there was an unused channel there.

Time Warner Cable said it was clear where the NFL Network was coming from.

"It is not to ensure Rutger's fans see their team. But, rather to ensure their Network is sampled by the largest number of our customers in the hopes they might gain some leverage in the longer-term negotiations that have been going on for months," a spokesman said.

Cablevision also accepted the NFL Network's proposal to carry the Texas Bowl game, but not all of the channel's programming. Cablevision and the NFL Network couldn't be reached for comment Friday afternoon.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i631d13dcd8dc0bc4204eacf796b33931

yes, the grass is always greener :D

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=9184611#post9184611

Who won?

Seems to me that no one won the NFLN deal. I have not missed the NFL games that have not been shown on the TW from the NFLN. On a given weekend there are 16 NFL games (non bye weeks) Locally we get 5 games and not the other 11 anyway. Because I live in the south and am from the north I rarely get to see the teams I want so I usually just watch the best game available. We are not in a local market so would never see a NFLN game on regular channels. I do however feel sorry for the college folks who won't see their teams play in the bowls games that the NFLN took.

The problem for me and maybe others is I like the sports tier I now have. I pay $2.95 a month for it. If TW gets its way and adds NFLN to it I bet it goes up a few bucks and then do I keep it? If they add it to the basic tier then all pay for it and everyone's bill goes up. So maybe the best deal is they keep crabbing at each other and the NFLN goes away. I used to like the Saturday games this time of year -- wife went shopping -- I stayed home and watched football!

Bottom line though TWC still does not give a rat's *** about its customers.

I just be friggin happy if all games went PPV, at least then I could see the damn game that I want to see.

I just be friggin happy if all games went PPV, at least then I could see the damn game that I want to see.

That would be the perfect end all solution for the customer but it will be a long time before we get to that model. I'd like to pick and choose the big out of market games and pay $5-$20 per game depending on a sliding number of games you commit to buy. I would also like Pam Anderson to be my personal assistant and I think I might get that before the NFL changes their draconian marketing tactics :D

Posted by Fredfa on the Hot off the Presses thread:

The Business of Television
New York TWC Customers To Get Free NFL Preview
By Ben Grossman Broadcasting & Cable 12/18/2006

The National Football League on Monday accepted Time Warner Cable’s offer to put a free preview of the NFL Network on its digital basic tier in the New York area Dec. 24-30.

The preview would allow New York and New Jersey subscribers to see a Rutgers University post-season college football game that the NFL has the exclusive rights to show.

"In light of the fact that 75% of Time Warner’s New York-area customers subscribe to the digital basic tier, we have concluded that its offer represented the quickest and best way to bring Rutgers’ appearance in the Texas Bowl to Time Warner subscribers and to make the freeview a reality," the NFL said in a statement.

Last week, after the NFL Network offered to provide a free preview of its network Dec. 24-30, TWC had said it would either make only the Dec. 28 Rutgers game available to all its customers, or make the entire week-long preview available to digital customers only.

But in a letter dated Dec.14 to Time Warner Cable chairman and CEO Glenn Britt, NFL Network (NFLN) chief Steve Bornstein said neither of the two options TWC proposed "satisfy both our goals for the freeview."

The statement went on to say the NFL has informed TWC it "would extend this same freeview to subscribers of Time Warner in affected regions in Kansas and Texas (both states in which state universities are participating in bowl games that NFL Network will telecast) on similar penetration terms. However, the New York resolution is not tied to the additional freeview offer in Texas and Kansas."

NFLN and TWC are still in a standoff over carriage after the network began carrying live NFL games this season.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6401110

Hope TWC has a good stock of STB's ! The $$$'s will roll in.

Hope TWC has a good stock of STB's ! The $$$'s will roll in.

Doubtful - the people who cared were probably in the 75% who already had digital cable - so they could get the Sports Tier in the first place.

Doubtful - the people who cared were probably in the 75% who already had digital cable - so they could get the Sports Tier in the first place.

I was in northern VA this weekend (Cox SD only) and got a chance to see the NFL Network game on Sat pm. Some impressions--

-their production (graphics, camera angles, etc.) was very sub-par in comparison to the broadcast networks
-Dick Vermeil sounded like he was gargling rocks ... they eventually yanked him at the beginning of the 2nd half
-the announcers were simply awful, as others have opined ... Bryant Gumbel has no business doing play-by-play, and emergency fill-in analysts Marshall Faulk and Deion Sanders were understandably over their head(s)
-the pre-game show was so inferior to Fox, ESPN or CBS (NBC's "Football Night in America" is also very poor IMO) ... they have 3 hours to fill with about 15 minutes worth of solid programming

All in all, I was happy to watch an NFL game but it was not the same quality as the others who have been doing it for years. I would hope that they would get better with time.

In the for what it's worth department ...

I had a chance to compare Cox (Fairfax, VA) and my local TWC (Raleigh) programming line-ups. They are pretty similar as far as HD offerings:

(Cox HD in VA): ABC (local), CBS (local), NBC (local), Fox (local), WB (local), PBS (local), TNT, Discovery HD, HBO (sub), Starz (sub), Showtime (sub), ESPNHD, ESPN2HD, InHD, InHD2 (merging with InHD on 1/1), Universal HD, MTVHD

(Raleigh TWC): ABC (local), CBS (local), NBC (local), Fox (local), PBS (local), TNT, Discovery HD, HBO (sub), Showtime (sub), ESPNHD, InHD, InHD2 (merging with InHD on 1/1), HDNet, HDNet Movies, Universal HD

Cox has a couple more (net), but I'm sure that varies by region.

I don't know about other TWCs (I have read on other forums about Austin, NYC, and Albany adding HDs in the next few weeks), but Raleigh does not plan any new HD additions as of 1/1 ... according to an email reply I received today. That's disappointing, especially since MTV-HD and A&EHD have national distribution agreements with TWC.

Anyway ... just a few observations.

I was in northern VA this weekend (Cox SD only) and got a chance to see the NFL Network game on Sat pm. Some impressions--

-their production (graphics, camera angles, etc.) was very sub-par in comparison to the broadcast networks
-Dick Vermeil sounded like he was gargling rocks ... they eventually yanked him at the beginning of the 2nd half
-the announcers were simply awful, as others have opined ... Bryant Gumbel has no business doing play-by-play, and emergency fill-in analysts Marshall Faulk and Deion Sanders were understandably over their head(s)
-the pre-game show was so inferior to Fox, ESPN or CBS (NBC's "Football Night in America" is also very poor IMO) ... they have 3 hours to fill with about 15 minutes worth of solid programming

All in all, I was happy to watch an NFL game but it was not the same quality as the others who have been doing it for years. I would hope that they would get better with time.

In the for what it's worth department ...

I had a chance to compare Cox (Fairfax, VA) and my local TWC (Raleigh) programming line-ups. They are pretty similar as far as HD offerings:

(Cox HD in VA): ABC (local), CBS (local), NBC (local), Fox (local), WB (local), PBS (local), TNT, Discovery HD, HBO (sub), Starz (sub), Showtime (sub), ESPNHD, ESPN2HD, InHD, InHD2 (merging with InHD on 1/1), Universal HD, MTVHD

(Raleigh TWC): ABC (local), CBS (local), NBC (local), Fox (local), PBS (local), TNT, Discovery HD, HBO (sub), Showtime (sub), ESPNHD, InHD, InHD2 (merging with InHD on 1/1), HDNet, HDNet Movies, Universal HD

Cox has a couple more (net), but I'm sure that varies by region.

I don't know about other TWCs (I have read on other forums about Austin, NYC, and Albany adding HDs in the next few weeks), but Raleigh does not plan any new HD additions as of 1/1 ... according to an email reply I received today. That's disappointing, especially since MTV-HD and A&EHD have national distribution agreements with TWC.

Anyway ... just a few observations.

I read somewhere that TWC Cary was moving HGTV from 77 to 60 and CSPAN2 from 60 to I think 5. An educated guess is that they are clearing 77 for use as a QAM channel. Since the digital line-up is regional, I would expect to see the whole region do the same, although empty slots in the lower channels vary from system to system. Anyway, we'll see.

I read somewhere that TWC Cary was moving HGTV from 77 to 60 and CSPAN2 from 60 to I think 5. An educated guess is that they are clearing 77 for use as a QAM channel. Since the digital line-up is regional, I would expect to see the whole region do the same, although empty slots in the lower channels vary from system to system. Anyway, we'll see.

Let's hope. I just got an email from George Douglas (TWC Raleigh VP of Marketing), and he made no mention of adding any HD channels in the near term. I mentioned to him that at least 2 TWC's (Austin and NYC) are adding A&EHD and MTV-HD by 1/1 and that a third (Albany, NY) is adding those 2 and ESPN2HD. I am guessing though, that ESPN2HD may be a carry-over carriage agreement for former Adelphia customers.

We shall see.

Doubtful - the people who cared were probably in the 75% who already had digital cable - so they could get the Sports Tier in the first place.

I think TWC-NYC is putting this into their digital basic package so it would be available for all of those who have STB's and not just those who subscribe to the sports tier. But, I may be missing something.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6401115.html?display=Breaking+News

I think TWC-NYC is putting this into their digital basic package so it would be available for all of those who have STB's and not just those who subscribe to the sports tier. But, I may be missing something.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6401115.html?display=Breaking+News

I never said it was going into their sports tier.

I made the point that it was going into their digital tier which is a must have for the Sports Fanatic who most likely be interested in this - so that everyone who needed an STB would already have it - and they do not need a big supply a STBs as the earlier posted stated.

I guess I was not the only one to express this thought:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/sports/ncaafootball/16sandomir.html?ref=sports

"But it suggests a situation in which football-crazed fans will besiege Time Warner’s phone lines for digital service — for just one week’s preview — and new cable boxes will actually be delivered and installed on time."