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 have not spoken with anyone at Cox NOVA in about 18 months and do not know what their current line up looks like, but let me point out (though not HD) from a bandwidth issue on any system, you must look at all the PBS digital channels - HD or not - as well as any multicast channels - as they all take up room on a QAM and must be factored into the balance - just like the number of SD channels also comes into play.

For example, Comcast (who again, I THOUGHT was running more HD Programming until I laid it out side by side) accomplished this in one market by removing the West Coast SD Feeds of a number of the Showtime and Cinemax channels - enough to free up an entire QAM.

On my TWC managed system, these still exist - even though they are just repeats of what aired 3 hours earlier.

In my mind, as warped as it is, this is stupid in 2007.

You do not need a duplicate channel 3 hours behind the original. With the advent of DVRS - AND ON DEMAND PROGRAMMING from the Movie Channels - there really is NO NEED for this duplication.

All the West Coast versions (or everything except the main channel refeed) and let people use On Demand to see these movies - use the QAMs to add the HD Versions of Starz, Cinemax etc.

Everyone who gets the 7 or so West Coast Feeds of HBO already has a digital STB - so they can see these On Demand.

Quite frankly, I do not sub to Cinemax because the HD Version is not available. If they removed the West Coast refeeds, the viewer would loose nothing - as they could see them on East Time - DVR them - or watch On Demand - and they would pick up more HD Customers.

To me, its a no brainer - but then again, I have as much input with TWC as you do.

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.

OK. I was just fuzzy on what this means for the NYC folks.

I have not spoken with anyone at Cox NOVA in about 18 months and do not know what their current line up looks like, but let me point out (though not HD) from a bandwidth issue on any system, you must look at all the PBS digital channels - HD or not - as well as any multicast channels - as they all take up room on a QAM and must be factored into the balance - just like the number of SD channels also comes into play.

For example, Comcast (who again, I THOUGHT was running more HD Programming until I laid it out side by side) accomplished this in one market by removing the West Coast SD Feeds of a number of the Showtime and Cinemax channels - enough to free up an entire QAM.

On my TWC managed system, these still exist - even though they are just repeats of what aired 3 hours earlier.

In my mind, as warped as it is, this is stupid in 2007.

You do not need a duplicate channel 3 hours behind the original. With the advent of DVRS - AND ON DEMAND PROGRAMMING from the Movie Channels - there really is NO NEED for this duplication.

All the West Coast versions (or everything except the main channel refeed) and let people use On Demand to see these movies - use the QAMs to add the HD Versions of Starz, Cinemax etc.

Everyone who gets the 7 or so West Coast Feeds of HBO already has a digital STB - so they can see these On Demand.

Quite frankly, I do not sub to Cinemax because the HD Version is not available. If they removed the West Coast refeeds, the viewer would loose nothing - as they could see them on East Time - DVR them - or watch On Demand - and they would pick up more HD Customers.

To me, its a no brainer - but then again, I have as much input with TWC as you do.

Yeah, I agree. Having a west coast and east coast version of a channel seems superfluous.

Off subject, but following a train of thought, aren't multiple screens of any pay channel somewhat obsolete with VOD versions of the channel ??? Seems like a lot of bandwidth wasted on these channels.

As expected, TWC starting to raise Cable rates:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20061220/1021469.asp

Time Warner to raise cable TV rates 5%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most popular package expected to rise about $2.50 a month

By DALE ANDERSON
News Staff Reporter
12/20/2006

Most Western New York cable TV customers will see their rates go up about 5 percent in the new year, Time Warner Cable announced Tuesday.
Cable officials noted that some subscribers will see less of an increase, based on where they live and what services they receive.

The announcement did not provide dollar figures for the hike.

Based on current rates, it could be expected that the cost of the most popular channel package - expanded basic - would rise about $2.50 a month. Rates for the package earlier this year were $51.36 a month in Buffalo and $52.09 in the suburbs.

The announcement also did not give a date when the new rates would take effect. In Buffalo, it's likely that it will be the same date as this year's increase - Feb. 1.

Time Warner officials noted that the increase is smaller than in previous years. Adelphia, which Time Warner acquired last summer, had raised rates 40 to 44 percent since 2001, including a 6 percent hike a year ago.

Officials added that some cable fees would be reduced. The monthly cost of DVR service will fall from $6.95 a month to $4.95. Rates for advanced digital TV boxes will decrease by $1. Prices for high-speed computer service will remain the same.

"The majority of our programmers increase their prices to us annually," Steve Jaworowski, Buffalo Division vice president of marketing services for Time Warner Cable, said in a news release. "The new rates are a pass-through of programming rate increases that we must incur on an annual basis. Considering the rise in overall operating costs, we're especially pleased that we've been able to cap it at just 5 percent."

Time Warner officials noted that the company has been making improvements in program selection, delivery of services and infrastructure since it took over from Adelphia.

There was no mention of two controversies that have arisen since the takeover - making the NFL Network an extra-cost premium channel and complaints about recovery time after the disastrous October snowstorm, which interrupted service to thousands of subscribers.

The announcement noted that Time Warner added several new channels to its offerings last week.

"The addition of channels, as well as creation of packages that better reflect consumer interests, are all part of our improvement plan," Jaworowski said.

Off subject, but following a train of thought, aren't multiple screens of any pay channel somewhat obsolete with VOD versions of the channel ??? Seems like a lot of bandwidth wasted on these channels.

I would not say that. They can't yet just put EVERYTHING up on On Demand,and there are some folks who may choose not to use the service.

Getting back to football,I am not sure how Concast can carry NFL with the games and put it on a sports tier (or plan to) :)

I would not say that. They can't yet just put EVERYTHING up on On Demand,and there are some folks who may choose not to use the service.



Disagree - it comes down to marketing.

If you can sell it that nothing is being taking away. You can still watch the live East Coast Feed.

If you miss it, instead of waiting 3 hours - you can watch it on your schedule OnDemand - you can stop it - rewind it etc - so its the best of both worlds.

AND....it costs you no more money for this added feature!!!

Then you pull the West Coast SD feeds (or East Coast feeds on West Coast if you prefer) and use the QAM(s) for HD.

As expected, TWC starting to raise Cable rates:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20061220/1021469.asp

Time Warner to raise cable TV rates 5%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most popular package expected to rise about $2.50 a month

And according to another website, Dish is raising their rates $3 a month today.

Disagree - it comes down to marketing.

If you can sell it that nothing is being taking away. You can still watch the live East Coast Feed.

If you miss it, instead of waiting 3 hours - you can watch it on your schedule OnDemand - you can stop it - rewind it etc - so its the best of both worlds.

AND....it costs you no more money for this added feature!!!

Then you pull the West Coast SD feeds (or East Coast feeds on West Coast if you prefer) and use the QAM(s) for HD.

I was referring to the Multiplex channels HBO Signature,HBO Family,HBO Comedy,HBO Zone ect...

HBO2 I am not sure and HBO West is defiantly a waste on cable,except on the west caost and thiose on the West coast should not get HBO East either.

I was referring to the Multiplex channels HBO Signature,HBO Family,HBO Comedy,HBO Zone ect...

HBO2 I am not sure and HBO West is defiantly a waste on cable,except on the west caost and thiose on the West coast should not get HBO East either.

On my TWC managed system, we have the following West Coast feeds that are not on the Atlanta Comcast System:

SHOWTIME BEYOND WEST
SHOWTIME EXTREME WEST
SHOWTIME FAMILY ZONE WEST
SHOWTIME NEXT WEST
SHOWTIME SHOWCASE WEST
SHOWTIME TOO WEST
SHOWTIME WEST
SHOWTIME WOMEN WEST
HBO COMEDY WEST
HBO ZONE WEST
THRILLER MAX WEST
MOVIE CHANNEL EXTRA WEST
MOVIE CHANNEL THE WEST

Again, all are duplicates of the East Coast Programming and could be accomplished with OnDemand and promoting as such - as described above.

While this clears out 1 QAM, its still only 1 QAM and enough for more HD - which is obviously what Comcast is looking at.

However, if all the other West Coast Refeeds were cleared out and used via OnDemand:

HBO WEST
HBO 2 WEST
HBO SIGNATURE WEST
HBO FAMILY WEST
HBO LATINO WEST
CINEMAX WEST
MORE MAX WEST
ACTION MAX WEST

This opens up even more space for HD.

On my TWC managed system, we have the following West Coast feeds that are not on the Atlanta Comcast System:

SHOWTIME BEYOND WEST
SHOWTIME EXTREME WEST
SHOWTIME FAMILY ZONE WEST
SHOWTIME NEXT WEST
SHOWTIME SHOWCASE WEST
SHOWTIME TOO WEST
SHOWTIME WEST
SHOWTIME WOMEN WEST
HBO COMEDY WEST
HBO ZONE WEST
THRILLER MAX WEST
MOVIE CHANNEL EXTRA WEST
MOVIE CHANNEL THE WEST

Again, all are duplicates of the East Coast Programming and could be accomplished with OnDemand and promoting as such - as described above.

While this clears out 1 QAM, its still only 1 QAM and enough for more HD - which is obviously what Comcast is looking at.

However, if all the other West Coast Refeeds were cleared out and used via OnDemand:

HBO WEST
HBO 2 WEST
HBO SIGNATURE WEST
HBO FAMILY WEST
HBO LATINO WEST
CINEMAX WEST
MORE MAX WEST
ACTION MAX WEST

This opens up even more space for HD.

It's not just that the West Coast feeds are redundant. Most of the programming on the mulitplex channels is also available in the On Demand menu and/or time shifted off the parent network. For satellite, muliticast is still a marketing fluff necessity. For cable, it's a waste of valuable spectrum.

It's likely these multicast channels will be among the first to become "virtual" channels with the advent of SDV, very similar to the migration from "near VOD linear PPV" (still the satellite model) and true streaming VOD as adopted by the cable industry.

But we're way in the weeds here topic wise. :o :o :o :o

agreed - just pointing out where additional bandwidth for HD can come from - as all these feeds are irrelevant in 2007.

agreed - just pointing out where additional bandwidth for HD can come from - as all these feeds are irrelevant in 2007.

We agree? I'm flabbergastted !! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Comcast knows how to look good in all this: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-21-2006/0004495303&EDATE=

They've put out a Press Release that's all over the Internet and in Newspapers that states that all it's New Jersey customers with a Digital Package can get the Texas Bowl for free and (and this is the important/brilliant part),


"Comcast also announced a gift for its analog (basic) subscribers or new
subscribers, providing 30-days of a free digital box and Digital Plus
service, enabling New Jersey residents to watch the game at absolutely no
charge. Customers who do not currently have a cable box or have an analog
box may visit any of more than 40 Comcast locations throughout New Jersey
to pick up a free digital box and initiate their free 30-days of Digital
Plus service."

= = =

Think that TWC or Cablevision would give up their chance to bring in more $$$'s through STB rentals and Digital Tiers/Sports Packages with a similar offer ?

(They don't see any long range payback in it other than the up front bucks from short term Sports Fans.)

I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge !

That is sneaky on Comcast part. I like it, it is good business sense. Use a need /want for personal gain. Can't get anybeter then this. Anyone who takes this deal. Is brought to digtial through the back way. These people might be wanting to wait for DTV or many not be ready for DTV but now they get that free month and can not look back. I doubt they will give back the analog box after the"FREE" month. After that month they get at least $2 more a month for the DTV box and another 5-10 maybe more for the DTV service, then the big whammy the annual increase. All that for one free month. It may look good on paper, but in turn Comcast will win because that will be less customers then will have to temp with bigger discounts to convert to DTV in 2009. All these cable companies have stopped giving analog as a choice.

The Business of TV
NFL Net will allow preview on Cablevision
By Pal J. Gough, The Hollywood Reporter December 22, 2006

The NFL Network told Cablevision on Thursday that it would let the cable operator offer the network as a free weeklong preview under the same terms Time Warner Cable agreed to last week.

TWC's deal calls for the NFL Network to be placed, temporarily, on a digital tier that reaches 75% of its customers. The offer, made in a letter to Cablevision from NFL Network CEO Steve Bornstein, gave a deadline of today for a response by the Long Island-based cable operator so that the network can approve the necessary paperwork.

Cablevision could not immediately be reached for comment.

Thursday's offer follows a heated exchange between the two companies that played out Wednesday. The NFL Network declared that Cablevision had declined its free offer; Cablevision denied that it had declined it but instead accepted the carriage of the Texas Bowl game between Rutgers and Kansas State.

A little less than two weeks ago, NFL Network offered a free preview of the channel from Dec. 24-30 (including the Rutgers game) to TWC and Cablevision. Both cablers have declined to carry the NFL Network on their systems, even after this year's start of regular-season NFL games. TWC and the NFL Network agreed to terms this week but Cablevision had not.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ifc91056537ab39208b9e973a5fdf8759

No 8 game dilemma any longer.

According to Nielsen, only about 10% OF THE CABLE HOUSEHOLDS with NFLN are watching the games on Thursday/Saturday night - meaning the other 90% don't give a crap.

And this is the highlight of their network for which they wanted the 3rd richest compensation of any of the cable networks????

lol.

A sucker is born every minute - thank god it wasn't the smarter cable operators.

Well, if the games production values stay like they are, everyone is not missing much.

Not to mention that the games themselves haven't been anything great. I'm a Cablevision sub so I don't have NFLN, and frankly, I don't care. NFLN coverage of my team, the Giants, will be shown on WNBC next Saturday, and I can live with highlights for the other NFLN games like I get for the 10 other games I can't see each week.

Here in Richmond, VA, Comcast airs the NFL Network in SD on two digital channels, 180 and 275.

Starting Thanksgiving, they've aired the Thursday/Saturday night games on HD by pre-empting scheduled movies on channel 226, inHD.

That sounds like good news, except that they aren't advertised, the guide doesn't show them, and only a handful of local subscribers have any idea the games are available in HD.

I work nights and can't see the games live, but I've been scheduling the DVR to record the movies that appear in the guide during that time period. Last night, even that didn't work.

The DVR started at 8 p.m. and got 13 minutes of bad acting from "The Poseidon Adventure" (They don't call it a "disaster" flick for nothing,) and then cut off.

A second two-hour recording began on time at 10 for "Beyond the Poseidon Adventure." That started with 12 minutes to go in the third quarter of the Packers-Vikings game and stopped at an hour and 17 minutes. I haven't watched it yet to know whether it caught the end of the game.

I've complained multiple times to Comcast, getting only canned replies that they will forward my interest in NFL HD.

I agree with those who say the NFL Network HD broadcasts are sub-par from every angle. But that doesn't mean I don't want to see them. The current situation is intolerable.

The point is clear. NFL Network got stuck with the turkey games that Monday Night Football used to have. Not their fault, they couldn't predict that the teams they chose to cover, who looked so good on paper, would be bottom-feeders when the games actually aired. End result, less viewer interest and not the stampede and clamor that the NFL hoped for.

Did we lose by not seeing these games? Maybe. Maybe not. But it sure had to knock the honchos at the NFL down a peg. If the games had been compelling in one form or another, maybe another story.

TWC (and the others who refused to pony up) now have the upper hand in future negotiations. :cool:

According to Nielsen, only about 10% OF THE CABLE HOUSEHOLDS with NFLN are watching the games on Thursday/Saturday night - meaning the other 90% don't give a crap.

Wow thanks for the fantastic news.

From what I can gather, even the Broadcast Networks are lucky to average that kind of ratings for their shows in any given week. For the NFL Network to do that when it's limited to 40% or so availablility and in many cases the public must jump through Cable hoops to find it - that's astounding !

From the latest weekly Nielsen Ratings:

"ESPN retained the top spot for all individual programs on ad-supported cable last week, delivering 11.18 million viewers with its Monday Night Football match-up between the NFC’s likely representative in Super Bowl XLI, the Chicago Bears, and the rebuilding St. Louis Rams.

For its part, USA delivered cable’s second-largest audience last week, averaging 4.88 million viewers Monday night between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. with its WWE Raw franchise. Meanwhile, The NFL Network, which is available in just over 41 million homes, managed to scare up a proportionately huge audience of 4.14 million viewers Saturday night with its coverage of the Dallas Cowboys-Seattle Seahawks showdown, taking the second largest program share of the week (11.0). "

Wow thanks for the fantastic news.

From what I can gather, even the Broadcast Networks are lucky to average that kind of ratings for their shows in any given week. For the NFL Network to do that when it's limited to 40% or so availablility and in many cases the public must jump through Cable hoops to find it - that's astounding !

From the latest Nielsen Ratings:

"ESPN retained the top spot for all individual programs on ad-supported cable last week, delivering 11.18 million viewers with its Monday Night Football match-up between the NFC’s likely representative in Super Bowl XLI, the Chicago Bears, and the rebuilding St. Louis Rams.

For its part, USA delivered cable’s second-largest audience last week, averaging 4.88 million viewers Monday night between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. with its WWE Raw franchise. Meanwhile, The NFL Network, which is available in just over 41 million homes, managed to scare up a proportionately huge audience of 4.14 million viewers Saturday night with its coverage of the Dallas Cowboys-Seattle Seahawks showdown, taking the second largest program share of the week (11.0). "

You seem to have forgotten these were simulcast on the local station in Dallas and Seattle which goes into the ratings - 2 Top 15 Television Markets with 4 Million Households just between the 2 markets. I guess you also forgot how bad the weather in Seattle was last weekend where people were not going out?

Again, when you look at the season thus far - for the PRIME EVENT - THE GAMES - IN CABLE SYSTEMS THAT HAVE THE NFLN - only 10% are viewing the game. The other 90% don't give a crap.

You don't get a high grade fro reading COMPREHENSION.

At least HDTVFanAtic has reasons for what he says. You seem to develop a personal dislike for certain people in about one third of the threads you post in.

According to the following from Wednesday night

Total Viewers:
CBS: 9.92 million
NBC: 7.94
Fox: 6.74
ABC: 4.86
CW: 1.76

This adds up to 31.22 million -- according to the US census counter the population of the US is just over 300 million. So about 10% of people watched the networks Wednesday night and the other 90% don't give a crap. Figures lie and liars figure.

Here is the link to the population number

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

Which percentage are you in if you watch and don't give a crap.

According to the following from Wednesday night

Total Viewers:
CBS: 9.92 million
NBC: 7.94
Fox: 6.74
ABC: 4.86
CW: 1.76

This adds up to 31.22 million -- according to the US census counter the population of the US is just over 300 million. So about 10% of people watched the networks Wednesday night and the other 90% don't give a crap. Figures lie and liars figure.

Let me ask you a question before I respond.....and think about your answer VERY CAREFULLY.

You want to compare numbers from Wednesday night which was essentially re-runs and old cancelled programs to the "American Idol/Dancing With The Stars/24/CSI/Superbowl" of the NFLN?

The Business of TV
NFL Net will allow preview on Cablevision
By Pal J. Gough, The Hollywood Reporter December 22, 2006

The NFL Network told Cablevision on Thursday that it would let the cable operator offer the network as a free weeklong preview under the same terms Time Warner Cable agreed to last week.

TWC's deal calls for the NFL Network to be placed, temporarily, on a digital tier that reaches 75% of its customers. The offer, made in a letter to Cablevision from NFL Network CEO Steve Bornstein, gave a deadline of today for a response by the Long Island-based cable operator so that the network can approve the necessary paperwork.

Cablevision could not immediately be reached for comment.

Thursday's offer follows a heated exchange between the two companies that played out Wednesday. The NFL Network declared that Cablevision had declined its free offer; Cablevision denied that it had declined it but instead accepted the carriage of the Texas Bowl game between Rutgers and Kansas State.

A little less than two weeks ago, NFL Network offered a free preview of the channel from Dec. 24-30 (including the Rutgers game) to TWC and Cablevision. Both cablers have declined to carry the NFL Network on their systems, even after this year's start of regular-season NFL games. TWC and the NFL Network agreed to terms this week but Cablevision had not.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ifc91056537ab39208b9e973a5fdf8759


From thebridge....

Cablevision Gets Best of Both Worlds with NFL Net Offering
In a letter sent to the NFL Network today, Cablevision COO Tom Rutledge said the MSO would accept the programmer's offer of a one-week preview featuring the all- football channel, a "free view" that would begin Saturday and include the much- anticipated college football bowl game showcasing New Jersey/New York favorite Rutgers. Rutledge also said Cablevision would like to feature the Texas Bowl game Dec. 28 on one of its analog channels so all of its customers can see the match. The network agreed to the MSO's additional stipulation. In response, NFL Network said it is pleased its programming "will now be widely available throughout the New York- New Jersey area for six days. This is a great opportunity for fans that have not yet seen NFL Network and we know they will appreciate its high quality programming."

I'm sorry I forgot you cannot speak out against HDFA on this post. He/she is the absolute and all others must listen. I will try and remember that HDFA is always right and that the rest of us are just peons and must fall under his/her power. I happen to disagree with HDFA use of the stats and was giving an example did not know I was going to be put down by his/her all knowing power!!

I'm sorry I forgot you cannot speak out against HDFA on this post. He/she is the absolute and all others must listen. I will try and remember that HDFA is always right and that the rest of us are just peons and must fall under his/her power. I happen to disagree with HDFA use of the stats and was giving an example did not know I was going to be put down by his/her all knowing power!!


By your non-answer, I guess we all know your apples to oranges comparison isn't going to work here.

If you want to compare Wednesday night - full of reruns, you must compare the NFLN's ratings on Wednesday Night of Reruns as well.

Do you really want to know the NFLN's ratings from Wednesday night?

If pointing out the fallacy of your illogical argument is a problem, I suggest you think through your illogical arguments before you post them.

If you want to compare the prime programming of the each network, so be it - but you cannot compare the prime programming of 1 network versus the reruns and cancelled shows of another network and expect to be taken seriously.

As an NFL fan, I hate the NFL channel gig.....

Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday...... When does it stop.....

A 3rd of the games aren't worth watching anyway.... Hate to pay for that!

Dugger

As an NFL fan, I hate the NFL channel gig.....

Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday...... When does it stop.....

A 3rd of the games aren't worth watching anyway.... Hate to pay for that!

Dugger


Well, Dugger- according to the NFLN in a story on the USA Today website posted just 4 hours, they claim in no uncertain terms that "We believe our fans are looking for football 365 days a year"

What kind of NFL fan are you ;)

Goodell sounds off about NFL Network

Updated 12/22/2006 2:06 PM
By Dylan B. Tomlinson, Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers
The way NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sees it, the dispute between the NFL Network and several cable carriers who refuse to carry the channel is a problem that isn't going away anytime soon.

Disappointed NFL fans around the country weren't able to see Thursday's Packers-Vikings game because the NFL can't come to an agreement with carriers such as Time Warner about how their product should be offered to the public.

Goodell knows the public is angry. He's frustrated, too.

"We're upset about it not being on on a broader basis. One of the things that the NFL is most proud of, is the fact that we go to the broadest possible audience," Goodell said.

"We are the only sports league to put all of our games on free television and into the home markets and into the visiting markets, and we're proud of that, and we think it's been a great part of our success. We're as upset with the cable operators and their inability for us to get that distribution, so we share the pain of the fans around here."

According to Goodell, the NFL wants its network available on basic cable packages, while the cable companies want to put it on a more expensive package.

"What cable operators are asking us to do is to put our games on a digital sports tier, which is a very small universe," Goodell said. "What they will then do is charge the consumers a significant amount of money to drive that digital sports tier. We don't want to do that. We want to be on the broadest possible tier. We want everyone to see our product."

The cable companies' contention is that in order to add NFL Network to basic cable packages, they would have to significantly raise the monthly rate of subscribers.

Goodell said he believes cable operators eventually are going to realize that the NFL Network is something that they can't withhold from consumers.

"We believe our fans are looking for football 365 days a year," Goodell said. "There is a very clear track record for a demand for our product."


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2006-12-22-goodell-nflnetwork_x.htm?csp=34

"We are the only sports league to put all of our games on free television"

I don't understand what he means by this. Are ESPN and NFL Network free television? If so, then so are the RSNs that carry virtually all other sports leagues' games.

ESPN & NFLN games are broadcast free to both teams' markets.

I don't understand what he means by this. Are ESPN and NFL Network free television? If so, then so are the RSNs that carry virtually all other sports leagues' games.

Read the entire story....he is claiming that basic cable service is FREE and the cable system will not charge you for NFLN if it is on Basic Cable - but will charge you if its not on basic.

I laughed when I read that.....wondering if someone else would catch it - which you did.

What's even more laughable about this is if they really wanted it carried, they should make it free to cable and make it 100% advertiser supported.

If NBC, ESPN, CBS and FOX can sell enough advertising to support paying the NFL several Billion a year, then clearly shouldn't the NFL be able to sell advertising and bring the same thing in?

I have spoken with the General Manager of Nielsen who obviously is already at home for the Holiday Weekend - but she has assured me that she will get the NFLN numbers for Wednesday Night and we can see a real apples to apples comparison of what repeats and reruns look like for all networks on Wednesday night.

She asked if it could wait until after the holidays and I assured her you weren't worth her getting Wednesday night numbers this weekend just to prove what everyone knows will be the case, so don't expect them until after the Holiday Weekend.

So, anyone want to place bets as to what the NFLN pulled on Wednesday night and how stupid kjpjr really is?

Free into home and visiting markets. Has nothing to do with cable.

Free into home and visiting markets. Has nothing to do with cable.

Sure it does.....there is nothing to stop that from happening whether on basic cable or sports tier.

The only thing that he can be speaking of free is basic cable. All other references to price are to the sports tier - ergo, free must be basic in the entire context of the story and all other references to money.

Again, read the statement and look at the placement of the word AND

"We are the only sports league to put all of our games on free television and into the home markets and into the visiting markets, and we're proud of that, and we think it's been a great part of our success. We're as upset with the cable operators and their inability for us to get that distribution, so we share the pain of the fans around here."

or another way

"We are the only sports league to put all of our games(1) on free television and(2) into the home markets and (3) into the visiting markets, and we're proud of that, and we think it's been a great part of our success. We're as upset with the cable operators and their inability for us to get that distribution, so we share the pain of the fans around here."

If it were as you state, the statement would read "We are the only sports league to put all of our games on free television in the home markets and the visiting markets."

Thanks HD you have a nice holiday dumping on people it seems to give you a real pleasure to hide behind a computer and call names.

Thanks HD you have a nice holiday dumping on people it seems to give you a real pleasure to hide behind a computer and call names.

if that isnt the pot calling the kettle back - especially in looking over the last 12 hours of posts.

Don't expect to come up with some snake oil research to make a point and expect it to fly.

If you want to compare apples to apples, great....which is what we will do.

But don't get your feelings hurt when you do as you stated 12 hours and bend the numbers comparing apples and oranges to make a case that cannot be compared.

Goodell sounds off about NFL Network

Updated 12/22/2006 2:06 PM
By Dylan B. Tomlinson, Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers

..."We are the only sports league to put all of our games on free television and into the home markets and into the visiting markets, and we're proud of that, and we think it's been a great part of our success. We're as upset with the cable operators and their inability for us to get that distribution, so we share the pain of the fans around here."...

And then...

Goodall feels for Green Bay's fans
But still plays hardball with cable providers
Associated Press

GREEN BAY, Wis. - NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said he shares the pain of Packers fans who weren't able to watch Thursday night's game on television because their local cable provider doesn't carry the NFL Network.

But the league wasn't willing to offer the game for free to all Wisconsin football fans who don't get the network in their homes. It was available on over-the-air stations in Green Bay and Milwaukee.

"You could obviously do that, and you could put it on free television," said Goodell, who spoke to reporters at Lambeau Field before the Vikings-Packers game. "But then, how do you ever get the distribution?"

---------------------------
How do you get the distribution? How about earning it through low rates for a while to see if your network is of any value? If fans really want the NFL every night of the week, then how about offering it on "free" television and let the advertisers support it. After all, the product is the highest demanded programming out there. Shouldn't it be able to stand on its own?

According to the following from Wednesday night

Total Viewers:
CBS: 9.92 million
NBC: 7.94
Fox: 6.74
ABC: 4.86
CW: 1.76

This adds up to 31.22 million -- according to the US census counter the population of the US is just over 300 million. So about 10% of people watched the networks Wednesday night and the other 90% don't give a crap. Figures lie and liars figure.

your comparison doesn't fly because you are comparing numbers for people who actually get the NFLN with numbers of everyone in the country, which includes infants who don't watch tv and people who don't have a tv (gasp! hard as it might be to believe i actually know some people who don't own tvs). so you need to get the % of the tv watching public who watch the networks to make your comparison valid.

here's a fun idea--let's check the ratings for NFLN vs. the networks somewhere around the 3rd week in may, i'll even spot you the entire population of the US in your comparison. :D

How do you get the distribution? How about earning it through low rates for a while to see if your network is of any value? If fans really want the NFL every night of the week, then how about offering it on "free" television and let the advertisers support it. After all, the product is the highest demanded programming out there. Shouldn't it be able to stand on its own?

Shouldn't every other cable network be able to do the same - and if not, why should the NFLN standard be any different?

Funny that some of you don't mind paying for LOGO, but think the NFL should be free.

Sure it does.....there is nothing to stop that from happening whether on basic cable or sports tier.

The only thing that he can be speaking of free is basic cable. All other references to price are to the sports tier - ergo, free must be basic in the entire context of the story and all other references to money.

Again, read the statement and look at the placement of the word AND

"We are the only sports league to put all of our games on free television and into the home markets and into the visiting markets, and we're proud of that, and we think it's been a great part of our success. We're as upset with the cable operators and their inability for us to get that distribution, so we share the pain of the fans around here."

or another way

"We are the only sports league to put all of our games(1) on free television and(2) into the home markets and (3) into the visiting markets, and we're proud of that, and we think it's been a great part of our success. We're as upset with the cable operators and their inability for us to get that distribution, so we share the pain of the fans around here."

If it were as you state, the statement would read "We are the only sports league to put all of our games on free television in the home markets and the visiting markets."

The intent of the statement is clearly that every single NFL game is provided free OTA - and they are only sports league to do that. Obviously he isn't talking about OOM games.

Sounds like a verbal quote, not a press release - critiquing the placement of the "and" is probably not a reliable way to gauge intent.

The intent of the statement is clearly that every single NFL game is provided free OTA - and they are only sports league to do that. Obviously he isn't talking about OOM games.

The NFL is also in a different situation than other sports. Each team only plays 16 games a year and I'd venture that 98% of all seats are sold out for every game across the league. It's not like the NBA w/82 games or the MLB w/162 games where half the games don't amount to anything. The OTA networks aren't going to fork out billions to the other leagues because of that fact. The networks then charge a premium to businesses to reach those fans. Those businesses have a percent of their price set aside for advertising. The irony there is that every time somebody buys a Bud Light, part of their purchase goes towards advertising on NFL games (or other venues) that they might not even watch :D

Rant time.

The fact that we don't have a Saturday afternoon NFL doubleheader in the final couple weeks of the season like we used to is the last straw. And this is someone who is actually able to get the NFL net games in HD. With the exception of the Thanksgiving night game this isn't working for me. I have a hard time getting up for a Thursday night game, and the quality of the games has been poor to say the least. I'd rather have the Saturday double header than the Saturday night game. I hope the cable companies hold fast and refuse to pay what thier asking for this crap. :mad:

OK, rant over. Have a nice day.

Yea, I agree. Bryant Gumbel is the worst annoucer on the face of the planet. I don't think that it is possible to find any one man more bland. Unless, you are Espn and have a woman do the big ten games on Saturday afternoon!!

Topics merged.

Rant time.

The fact that we don't have a Saturday afternoon NFL doubleheader in the final couple weeks of the season like we used to is the last straw. And this is someone who is actually able to get the NFL net games in HD. With the exception of the Thanksgiving night game this isn't working for me. I have a hard time getting up for a Thursday night game, and the quality of the games has been poor to say the least. I'd rather have the Saturday double header than the Saturday night game. I hope the cable companies hold fast and refuse to pay what thier asking for this crap. :mad:

OK, rant over. Have a nice day.


I agree with your rant and I also have access to the NFL-N games. The Saturday games late in the season were much better.

The Thursday Thanksgiving games are fine - a nice holiday bonus and a symbol of tradition, but overall, I find the level of play to suffer given the short week. Frankly, I think they should move the bye weeks further back in the season and the teams that play Thanksgiving should have their bye the Sunday before Thanksgiving to make things more fair to the visiting teams (particularly since it is the same 2 home teams every year - advantage every year, although one could say it doesn't make a damn bit of difference in Detroit's case. ;) ).

If NFL-N wants to continue with their package, then scrap the Thursday games, except for the Thanksgiving night game. They can do 2 Saturday doubleheaders (late afternoon game followed by evening game) and 1 Saturday tripleheader late in the year to get to their 8 games.

I thought they past the acceptable saturation point when they added Sunday Night Football. MNF used to be a must see game regardless of the match-up - now, my viewing of any primetime game is completely dependent on who's playing.

Shouldn't every other cable network be able to do the same - and if not, why should the NFLN standard be any different?

Funny that some of you don't mind paying for LOGO, but think the NFL should be free.

We agree on a la carte cable channels. What I don't understand is what seems to be your undying defense of NFL Network. Here they went and took their own product, removed 8 games from their previous distribution package, and tried to sell it on their own. Some providers aren't buying for their price. The NFL has created this mess by overestimating the value of their network, even with 8 games.

As some of us remember, before cable, broadcasting was completely advertiser supported. Now we get more advertising than ever and are paying for the privilege of having access to channels that we don't even watch.

I think the NFL has reached its saturation point. There has been no buzz around the NFL Network games as must-see entertainment. In light of this, the NFL should rethink its strategy. If they can get eyeballs by reducing their demands, then the advertising revenue will go up, as will additional leverage for future carriage agreements. I guess what bugs me is that the NFL thinks they should just be given the store without really proving they have a value in this arena.

The NFL has created this mess by overestimating the value of their network, even with 8 games.Just because they don't have universal distribution, doesn't mean they overestimated anything. Only time will answer that issue.

We agree on a la carte cable channels. What I don't understand is what seems to be your undying defense of NFL Network. Here they went and took their own product, removed 8 games from their previous distribution package, and tried to sell it on their own. Some providers aren't buying for their price. The NFL has created this mess by overestimating the value of their network, even with 8 games.

I happen to agree that additional primetime games don't add much to my enjoyment of the NFL. Where we seem to disagree is in the right the NFLN has to be treated exactly like any other new cablenet. If this ridiculous system we have allows programmers to dip into our pockets pretty much at will - why do we draw the line at the NFLN after 50 to 75 other cablenets have already been added?

Cablevision's stance on a la carte has earned my support any time they stand up to a content provider. TWC has no moral leg to stand on when trying to justify limiting NFLN's carriage.

why do we draw the line at the NFLN after 50 to 75 other cablenets have already been added?
2 reasons
Its the NFL so it makes for a great argument about a product people know about.

And the NFL Network is not part of a large media company that can provide additional value through a variety of niche cable channels as Disney and Viacom can.

And the NFL Network is not part of a large media company that can provide additional value through a variety of niche cable channels as Disney and Viacom can.

Shouldn't this be phrased as:

"And the NFL Network is not part of a large media company that can use its established channels as leverage to force carriage of new channels as Disney and Viacom can."

Or to put it another way, "additional value" is just a euphemism for shafting the customer.

And the NFL Network is not part of a large media company that can provide additional value through a variety of niche cable channels as Disney and Viacom can.

They don't provide additional value - they use their clout to force those niche channels (for a fee) down our throats. NFLN is handicapped because they don't have the stable of channels to coerce the MSO's with. They are in the unusual position of trying to leverage only the popularity of their programming in order to gain carriage - not the popularity of one channel to force the purchase of another. That's a business model we should all be encouraging.

Whether the MSO buy or not, at least it will be based on its own merits.

Just because they don't have universal distribution, doesn't mean they overestimated anything. Only time will answer that issue.

I agree, time will tell. It just seems that the buzz isn't there right now, and that may hurt their chances in the face of cable resistance, although I know the NFL has deep pockets and will most likely persevere.

I do think they overestimated the fan outcry and the influence it would have on providers. This season's slate of games is just about over. What next?

Where we seem to disagree is in the right the NFLN has to be treated exactly like any other new cablenet. If this ridiculous system we have allows programmers to dip into our pockets pretty much at will - why do we draw the line at the NFLN after 50 to 75 other cablenets have already been added?

I think the problem is that the NFL Network is being treated exactly like any other new cablenet. If a cablenet launches with perceived high-interest programming but prices themselves too high, then they'd be hurting for distribution. IMHO that is what is happening to NFL Network.

The market will sort itself out, and if all of this gets more people to notice how much each of us is paying for networks of limited interest, then I'll be glad to see this situation spill over in to next season.

The free preview is up and running on Cablevision channel 414. So far I give it a big who cares.

Here Comcast is showing the Thursday and Saturday night games in SD on TWO digital channels assigned to the NFL Network, and the HD version unadvertised on inHD.

Trouble is, I can't watch it because I work nights and weekends, and I can't record it because Comcast is doing something screwy that hoses my DVR.

Once again last night I scheduled recordings for the programs listed in the Comcast guide for the right time period for the Saturday game -- in this case a 2.5-hour Mike Tyson fight and one half-hour show.

The DVR started on time at 8 p.m. When I tried to watch early this morning it reported a 2.5 hour recording, the length of the Tyson show. The intro to the fight played fine, but one minute in -- apparently when Comcast switched to the football game -- the recording hung and would not advance when played, skipped of fast-forwarded, even though the time bar showed the full length of the show.

The second 30-minute segment recorded fine -- which means I got to watch the last 10 minutes of the game.

The Thursday night game did the same thing, recording 13 painful minutes of "The Poseidon Adventure" before dumping out at the start of the game.

Calling gets only clueless CSRs who don't even know the game was on because it's not in the listings. Comcast "e-care" still hasn't answered the e-mail I sent Thursday.

Anybody else seen this or have an answer?

We agree on a la carte cable channels. I think the NFL has reached its saturation point. There has been no buzz around the NFL Network games as must-see entertainment. In light of this, the NFL should rethink its strategy. If they can get eyeballs by reducing their demands, then the advertising revenue will go up, as will additional leverage for future carriage agreements. I guess what bugs me is that the NFL thinks they should just be given the store without really proving they have a value in this arena.

I don't, an A La carte system would greatly increase my Cable bill. Aren't they high enough. This is why the systems do not want to do it. What offers would you want them to give you. Pick 20-30 channels. Then why bother going digital in yther first place (I know it is a government approve plan but dihgital means more channels) Then what happens to the others that make them money and can't broadcast anymore because nobody wants them. Despite critizisum of these "chsaznnels we don't watch" If a carte selection was imposed so many stations wouldn't be were they are now. Do you think the Sheild would be as big as it was on an upstart channel, No way because they were just showing reruns with nothing new. What about scifi? A lot of people watched some good first run programs there but there wouldn't be any money to support those programs if a carte sytem was inplace because they wouldn't have the possible viewership they have now 70 mill homes. Which would lead to lower ad rates and a non-profit channel that would have never been bought by NBC-unversal. n even b etter example is lifetime. A womans network. Woman watch because it is there, and it is always a top 10 performer. but do you really think they would chose a network like that in the first place. I don't, the network grew from word of mouth and quality first run movies. So many movies that they have a lifetimne movie channel. When it comes to cable, that is a man's decission to have it because woman can live with regular OTA and be happy.(not the great women here at AVS)There are just so many things wrong with even thinking about A LA CARTE. This is why this will never happen in our lifetime. If you asking why would my be more expensive? Well think of it, the argument is to have 20-30 or 40-50 channels Carte. (that is what I read here in the past. Right now we have about If that is the case the income for the cable companies would be down because they can't get the advertising dollars they were use to. Each company would want to charge a NFL net fee per subscriber which would be substantially lowered because not everyone is going to pick what I pick. Not only that, the big 4, NBC, CBS, ABC & Fox would see a surge in their ratings because they will still be a required network with half the competition it has now. No more 10 news networks, no more 15 shoping, All money makers for these systems.Sorry for the rant guys, But BOOOO to a la carte!

The second thing is, NO BUZZ, come on, the only reason it hasn't gotten buzz the way you define it. Is the games it has scheduled. Take thursday game, two 6-8 teams the only reason they are still in the playoff hunt is because the NFC is in such a mess. The Giant game next week would have generated good ratings for them also if they didn't forget how to win and continued tossing good jump shots and not rimming it out.
But the way I define BUZZ is the way we see it now. Everyone knows about NFL Net because of this cable struggle. I storngly believe people do ask to see it because they can't get it. Plus you guys here strike more interest because we start thing, How bad can Mr Gumble be? Bad or good publicity leads to buzzz. This NFL-net has no loss of such buzz, especially here at AVS. 44 pages and counting about a station that isn't even offering HD except for 8 games if you even get that. Like HD FAN said much earlier, why is this thread on an HD site?

[QUOTE=CPanther95]why do we draw the line at the NFLN after 50 to 75 other cablenets have already been added?
QUOTE]

The probelm I have with that quote is, 50-70 channels added and most of them were because of the digital signal going out, like the 3 NBC, a weather, a shopping, and I think there is a news channel involved in that also, But all are running at no extra change just inclusive with NBC Local network feed. With TWC and cablevision carries these extras. ABC has used it so has Fox. Even then Most of these "extra channels" were added when we first got DTV and there was a increase right there but for that $10 a month extra we got over 100 channels , but more.

Even then none of these extras that have been released are asking for a per subscriber amount that puts them in the top ten in fees. Even then can you truly name 30 channels that were relesased after DTV was installed. Probably not. I heard that Fox news is up for a contract extension and they are looking for a big increase, but that is a proven ratings power. Cable comps will pay. But from anything I have read it is still going to be less then what the NFL is seeking. That to me is the biggest problem with this NFL thing. For all you local people this is the same fight YES had with Cablevision, but at least YES was able to show that is will have content tthrough the whole year with NETS, YANKS, & Local College. The big issue is about content. The NFL games draw ratings that can not be denied, but all they have are 8 of those. All these Companies should take a stand against it. So should all of us because what if they want to use a dedicated HD channel for 365 days. Then what we lose is that precious bandwith to a channel that will not broadcast more then 24 hr's of HD a year. We all ready get that with out other soprts locals but at least there are more games in the other sports to make it worth the space.

By the way, All disagreements aside. MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!! I hope you all got what you wanted. Remember it is better to give but it sure is fun opening your own presents. Enjoy the day and watch the Yule log on InHD. The fire crackling is amazinf on my 2.1 so I could only imagine wahtit sounds like on a 5.1 set.

Thanks nutty. I'm atheist myself so all I can wish you back is the happiest and merriest Monday ever! :) I'm also in NYC and debating whether I should watch the Fearless and Lady in the Water HD-DVD's I bought last night as blind buys or go to the AMC Empire 25 in Times Square to watch The Good Sheperd and Flags of Our Fathers. Decisions, decisions! :D

BTW nutty, do you know where Time Warner NYC has stashed the NFL Network's Free Preview Week? I've been flipping all morning and can't find it anywhere!

Thanks nutty. I'm atheist myself so all I can wish you back is the happiest and merriest Monday ever! :) I'm also in NYC and debating whether I should watch the Fearless and Lady in the Water HD-DVD's I bought last night as blind buys or go to the AMC Empire 25 in Times Square to watch The Good Sheperd and Flags of Our Fathers. Decisions, decisions! :D

BTW nutty, do you know where Time Warner NYC has stashed the NFL Network's Free Preview Week? I've been flipping all morning and can't find it anywhere!
That is good DAD, you had me in tears. Hey at least you get the day of and celebrate getting paid for doing nothing but ME TIME. You already spen over 60 dollars on to movies you don't need to spend another 30 at the movies also. But you see, atheist and all and you are still in the christmas mode, Giving to yourself!!!!!! Nothing wrong with that!

channel 199. NFL net

I don't, an A La carte system would greatly increase my Cable bill. Aren't they high enough. This is why the systems do not want to do it.

Yeah, that's why the networks and most cablecos don't want a la carte - they are concerned our monthly payment may increase. Glad we got them looking out for us. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that's why the networks and most cablecos don't want a la carte - they are concerned our monthly payment may increase. Glad we got them looking out for us. :rolleyes:
You don't have to be sarcastic about it, there is much more to it then them looking after to us. They are looking at their big business image at the same time. Do you want public access as part of your service, the answer is NO, but the cable cos have to provide these channels for tax breaks and/or rental breaks. Do you want shopping channels. no you don't but they have to be there because they have low operational cost and are some times owned by the Cable co or they rent the space to other companies as compared to paying for the bigger ones. The cable cos gain money from local comercial service. These are just a couple of the many reasons why "they have to look out for us, If they do an ala carte service and lose all that extra income from these channels the more they would have to charge a preimium just to have service Which means more money for less. 24 hr service is gone, CSR reps ( that know nothing gone), easy access to pay bills gone. Then the the biggy, the government would step in to lower the insane prices then and right back to where we started because there are just too many avenues that get closed by even suggesting an a la carte service. They might be looking at their interest to, but they know thee is limits to what they can charge us. Once people know how much money is truly exchanged within a cable operation they will know that a la carte is not feesible for any company to stay in service. They will have more packages in the future, but that is how far it will go.

I don't, an A La carte system would greatly increase my Cable bill. Aren't they high enough.

Yes, they are high enough, but while a la carte may greatly increase your cable bill, it may not increase others. And besides, I'm not in favor of a la carte in order to immediately save money on a monthly basis.

I'm interested in a la carte in order to create a market where channels survive on their own merits, based on eyeballs delivered and the monthly rate (if necessary) those subs are willing to pay. With the proliferation of new channels, the increased compression to provide more and more programming, and conglomerations leveraging their high-demand products in order to get carriage of new or less-demanded channels, I don't see a system where the consumer is really given much power. I also don't see where this will all end. It would be very interesting to see which programming would stand on its own.

I believe there would be a place for the NFL Network, but the market could set the price by actual demand. Right now, the NFL is trying to leverage fan loyalty, and it just doesn't seem to be strong enough to make a significant difference. Once the games are through, there will be even less concern about lack of carriage.

As for the previous weeks, I agree that the matchups have been less than stellar. However, the lack of buzz that I am describing really has less to do with the matchups and more to do with the positioning of the games. The NFL thrives because of its weekly games and the "event" status of its programming. Sunday is pro football day and Monday night gives us one last game to enjoy as we start the week. What is the purpose of Thursday games? Does the general public really want 4 nights of NFL games per week this time of year? Also, these games create a strong disadvantage for the teams in preparation, potentially upsetting the competitive balance for the playoff run. I've been watching, and truthfully, they come off almost like exhibition games.

This whole situation reminds me of when TNT used to carry some Sunday night games. Many people couldn't get them, and few really cared.

Yes, they are high enough, but while a la carte may greatly increase your cable bill, it may not increase others. And besides, I'm not in favor of a la carte in order to immediately save money on a monthly basis.

I'm interested in a la carte in order to create a market where channels survive on their own merits, based on eyeballs delivered and the monthly rate (if necessary) those subs are willing to pay. With the proliferation of new channels, the increased compression to provide more and more programming, and conglomerations leveraging their high-demand products in order to get carriage of new or less-demanded channels, I don't see a system where the consumer is really given much power. I also don't see where this will all end. It would be very interesting to see which programming would stand on its own.

I believe there would be a place for the NFL Network, but the market could set the price by actual demand. Right now, the NFL is trying to leverage fan loyalty, and it just doesn't seem to be strong enough to make a significant difference. Once the games are through, there will be even less concern about lack of carriage.

As for the previous weeks, I agree that the matchups have been less than stellar. However, the lack of buzz that I am describing really has less to do with the matchups and more to do with the positioning of the games. The NFL thrives because of its weekly games and the "event" status of its programming. Sunday is pro football day and Monday night gives us one last game to enjoy as we start the week. What is the purpose of Thursday games? Does the general public really want 4 nights of NFL games per week this time of year? Also, these games create a strong disadvantage for the teams in preparation, potentially upsetting the competitive balance for the playoff run. I've been watching, and truthfully, they come off almost like exhibition games.

This whole situation reminds me of when TNT used to carry some Sunday night games. Many people couldn't get them, and few really cared.

Well said, to many giving their opinions for or against a topic with out giving details about plans. This is the way to argue your position. No caslling names just a straight forward answer.

A la carte would be certain death for a lot of stations. There are just too many established stations. That would take up most of your choices, remember that article that was referred to in this thread. The average person watches only 25-30 channels of the 180+ that we can get. That is the thing that would eliminate many of the up and comers. How can they build merit if they don't get a chance to build a profit? Like I said these start ups rely on repeats to get started then once they get estanlished viewers they get the newer shows and first runs. But why would you choose that network wwhen they have no merit to begin with.
It is like baseball the teams that pay will get to the playoffs more often then the ones that don't pay. There is always a break out hit but the odds are against all of them. In my house and homes all accross america. You have a different a couple of age groups using one system. What would we choose? 51, 35, 22 2 men 2 and a woman. Right there there would be a wide span of channels. While the guys want the sports the lady wants her lifetimes. The young one wants his MTV the older one wants her shopping. A la carte sounds good when you are alone paying for 180 and you only watch 25, but most house holds are 2 or more.

I am in total agreement with you with the NFL, they overestimated their fan base. In my life time Thrusday niight has been mostly Must see TV. I didn't have time for any other show. I still watch NBC till this day. Plus the fact that they bombed on their games to broadcast. But look at who they picked. the last 2 wks plus next wk. These are teams that usually have winning records. It is the league that is killing their own network. The sunday games on TNT and ESPN are a good examlple. They got their viewers, but they weren't getting anywhere on cable, But this year the potential has been met, because you have NBC one of the big three nets showing a NFL game on a Sunday which has lead to reatings unseen by cable outlets ever on that night. Enter ESPN on Monday which like a lot of you guys are saying, we are pre-programed to watch football on this day. This has lead to a gold mine for ESPN. Highest sports ratings on cable. They have beat all four networks for the night a couple of times this season. I do believe the only reason is because of the habit more than the product. The last game is coming then this whole situation will go silent until August when they are showing live pre-season games. Then we can start up another 40 pages of why TWC still doesn't have NFLnet.

As I've said in the past, the big problem is that EVERYONE insists that their channel(s) all deserve to be on the low tier, including NFLN, leaving no middle ground between "broadcast basic" and the basic tier. If there were a system that would let me pay for just the broadcasters, Comedy Central, ESPN 1 & 2 HD and Cartoon Network, I'd probably be subscribing now.

Failing that, though, I think most Americans can agree on those "25-30 channels" we keep talking about that we can consider an "essential" cross-section of the TV universe. If the market and my bank account would let me, I could probably make a pretty good system using just the broadcasters plus 17 other channels -- or 18 when the Big Ten Network debuts ;) -- and make the other 60 "extra" channels into an optional silver package. That could actually head off all these "a-la-carte" calls and perhaps pick up some new subscribers who would otherwise be satellite or OTA only. But in order to do that, networks like NFLN would have to accept who they really are -- a nonessential, "extra" network -- and they don't want to do that.

They are all "nonessential extra networks" except for, perhaps, the broadcast networks.

They are all "nonessential extra networks" except for, perhaps, the broadcast networks.
But if they are all "non-essintisal", why get cable in the first place? All the networks are broadcast OTA and they look just as good if not better. You being in Charlotte, isn't that one of the major TV towns with the NC locals braodcasting from there

abc, cbs, nbc, Fox, CW, My network, PBS, PAX, there might be 2 other OTA channels they would need to give before we pick.
2 public access. Right there is 12. C-span's also which don't get charged
My choice. ESPN, YES, MSG, SNY, FSNY= 17
TNT, TBS, USA, FX, Sci-fi, Comedy, History, Discovery, A & E, a real music channel FUSE. That is 27 and that is before MY HD package that they will now charge me for to get all of the channels they offer in HD. That adds another 23 channels but you have to have one to have the other so I can't eliminate the locals or the sport channels. Look at that 50 channels I picked and the other 2 residents haven't picked any yet so I might be at 70-80 before I even picked a premium


Do you guys see why I think it won't work? A single guy or girl could make it work, but families can not. If there was a kid in the house I would have to add all the kids channels there are about 6 that I know about. You know every 10 channels after that 30 would add an arm and a leg.
But I am glad you people keep the faith that it will happen because we will need something else to chat about once the football season is over.

But if they are all "non-essintisal", why get cable in the first place? All the networks are broadcast OTA and they look just as good if not better. You being in Charlotte, isn't that one of the major TV towns with the NC locals braodcasting from there

Not sure of your point. He was classifying NFLN as a non-essential network - but claiming, for some reason that 25 or 30 other networks somehow qualify as "essential" networks worthy of being on the basic tier.

By the way - most people regularly watch only about 12 channels - not 50. If your household requires 70 or 80 cable channels (without any premiums), you rightfully should have a higher cable bill instead of expecting all those channels to be subsidized by others. Most of the rest of us would save a bundle.

It might help if they put on good games with a top notch production. Right now, Bryant and Chris are the worst announcers in Football, I would take Fox's and CBS's worst over that pair. That, along with the fact, they are showing crappy games, are not making a case to be on the basic tier.

abc, cbs, nbc, Fox, CW, My network, PBS, PAX, there might be 2 other OTA channels they would need to give before we pick.
2 public access. Right there is 12. C-span's also which don't get charged
My choice. ESPN, YES, MSG, SNY, FSNY= 17
TNT, TBS, USA, FX, Sci-fi, Comedy, History, Discovery, A & E, a real music channel FUSE. That is 27 and that is before MY HD package that they will now charge me for to get all of the channels they offer in HD. That adds another 23 channels but you have to have one to have the other so I can't eliminate the locals or the sport channels. Look at that 50 channels I picked and the other 2 residents haven't picked any yet so I might be at 70-80 before I even picked a premium

Do you guys see why I think it won't work? A single guy or girl could make it work, but families can not. If there was a kid in the house I would have to add all the kids channels there are about 6 that I know about. You know every 10 channels after that 30 would add an arm and a leg.
But I am glad you people keep the faith that it will happen because we will need something else to chat about once the football season is over.I think you may be misunderstanding me a little.

What I was proposing was a mid-size package between "broadcast basic" (a.k.a. "the poverty package", which includes OTA and access channels) and the 60-70 or so odd channels of "expanded basic." It would be a middle ground between true a-la-carte and what we have now. Right now, there is no such thing on cable.

HD, of course, provides yet another problem altogether, and if you ask me I don't think you should have to buy through expanded basic analog to get an HD tier. In fact, the day we get rid of analog cable and broadcast so that this becomes a non-issue will be a happy day indeed.

Then we can get back to complaining about the games themselves.

Not sure of your point. He was classifying NFLN as a non-essential network - but claiming, for some reason that 25 or 30 other networks somehow qualify as "essential" networks worthy of being on the basic tier.

By the way - most people regularly watch only about 12 channels - not 50. If your household requires 70 or 80 cable channels (without any premiums), you rightfully should have a higher cable bill instead of expecting all those channels to be subsidized by others. Most of the rest of us would save a bundle.
I was following up from your post not his when basically said how the braodcast networks would be the only essential networks. Which is why I questioned getting Cable in the first place if they are the only "essential one"

But 12 channels, the studies are already out that the average person watches 30 channels. We have 20-25 HD channels now and everyone wants more. That is just us HD people. 12 is a very low number. The low # is closer to 16. There might not be that many added when the rest of the family chooses.
First of all the 50 was included with duplicates that the ala carte would now become premium and now require a fee to have, That is where I got the 50 from in the first place. I true family a four, (Mother35, father42, brother12 and sister6) Would be very close to a 70 channel base. These are the people who would get screwed the most. Which was my point.

I didn't make the number up. It may be much lower than your family watches, but it is what it is.

According to the following from Wednesday night

Total Viewers:
CBS: 9.92 million
NBC: 7.94
Fox: 6.74
ABC: 4.86
CW: 1.76

This adds up to 31.22 million -- according to the US census counter the population of the US is just over 300 million. So about 10% of people watched the networks Wednesday night and the other 90% don't give a crap. Figures lie and liars figure.

This will be the most anti-climatic post in this thread as virtually everyone except kjpjr realized that he was comparing Wednesday 12-20-2006 reruns to one of the 8 NFL games last Saturday - but I did promise to get the ratings for NFL Reruns on Wednesday Night so everyone else could see how wrong he truly was:

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7263/nfln12202006lk3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1752/nfln12202006hutlevelszh0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Total Households: 111,400,000
NFLN Avaliable: 38,875,000 or 34.9% of the Households

12-20-2006 Sample Size Households: 11,636
12-20-2006 NFLN Where Available Sample Size: 4,339 or 37.3% of the Sample

Thus the NFLN was available in more Sample Households for 12-20-2006 then it is available in the Country as a whole - thus it was oversampled - still with dismal results.

If you really feel generous, figure 2.4 people per Household - if you think the entire family watched the NFLN Reruns.

There were probably almost that many in the stadium.

A number of posts have been deleted. Stop bickering, leave the personal stuff out, and stay on topic.

TWC SA started their NFL Network trial on channel 946 on Christmas Eve. I found out they were running it 12/24-12/30 when I called to complain about the loss of INHD2. I was pretty happy until I found out that the trial ends at 7PM CST on 12/30, right as the Giants/Redskins game comes on. That's just rich....we get a whole week of NFL hype and review shows and a couple of college bowl games but no NFL football games :rolleyes:

Although I think he's a jerk and has run the Knicks and Rangers in to the ground I have to agree with Jim Dolan's argument regarding carraige of the NFL Netowrk on Cablevision. In a recent interview he questioned why he should be forced to take the 8 game package when the NFL will not offer cable Sunday Ticket because of their exclusive deal with D*? He stated that if he could offer his cable subscribers Sunday Ticket he would carry the NFL Network.

Come on the Knicks isn't Jim's mess, Isiah is the one who traded away big money for even more money that will have them over the cap up until our children have children. At least he isn't opening the purse anymore with the Rangers which means they are younger but he needs to open it a little to get that right mix in there. About your comment, all the owners are saying that. It is like a chain letter that went out from TWC to try to end that exclussive deal. Even though we know that will not happen untill 2011. I think All the cable provders would give the NFL net a chance if it had more to market, but the fact that we always come down to it being an 8 game netwrok speaks volumes on why the companies aren't rushing to the bank to send them a check.

Come on the Knicks isn't Jim's mess, Isiah is the one who traded away big money for even more money that will have them over the cap up until our children have children.

Who hired him?

Although I think he's a jerk and has run the Knicks and Rangers in to the ground I have to agree with Jim Dolan's argument regarding carraige of the NFL Netowrk on Cablevision. In a recent interview he questioned why he should be forced to take the 8 game package when the NFL will not offer cable Sunday Ticket because of their exclusive deal with D*? He stated that if he could offer his cable subscribers Sunday Ticket he would carry the NFL Network.
I heard that interview with Dolan on WFAN radio.
It was pretty transparent that he was using the carriage of the 8 NFL network games on cable as leverage into the full NFL Sunday Ticket which DTV has paid the exclusive right to carry. He said that the cable co’s would have given more to the NFL for the Sunday Ticket package than DTV offered. Oh yeah really?… so why didn’t they then?

Its sour grapes on the part of the cable co’s now, they want the Sunday Ticket package- and they want the NFL Network games too. They see the NFL games slowly migrating towards the satellite providers and they can just feel the $$$ slipping out of their greedy little hands. Dolan is a slippery little fellow who will try to use the court of public opinion to somehow convey the idea that cable is really the good guy here and they’re working on behalf of its viewers best interests.
Well, if you believe that… I got some nice front row seats at The Garden that I’ll let you have real cheap :D


OT... I also agree that since Dolan hired Isaiah, promoted him to GM & President of the Knicks... and now coach too then gave him carte blanche with the franchise.... the Knicks standing is ultimately Dolan’s responsibility because he brought Isaiah here to begin with.

When Ewing, Starks, Oakman, Mace, LJ, Greg Anthony, Mark Jackson, etc… were with the Knicks- those games were spectacle’s because they left their hearts out on the floor. They never mailed in games or a whole season for that matter. They gave it up for the team and the fans every night because they were the New York Knicks and proud of it. Nobody came into their house and put the hammer down on them and beat them into submission. Jordan and Reggie used to love to play the Knicks, especially at The Garden because the intense competition brought out the best in every player on both teams.
The guys Isaiah’s brought in here don’t seem to care who they play for… or even worse they don’t seem to care if they play or get benched. As long as they get their payday… they’re happy. It’s a real shame how the once proud Knicks have gone from first to worst in the harts and minds of the NY fans…

I'm sorry, but any REAL Knicks fan knows who the best were: Bradley, Debusschre, Reed, Frazier and Barnett, coached by "Red" Holzman. Also add in the variations that inclucded John Lucas, Earl Monroe and Phil Jackson (where do you think he learned all that "triangle" defense from?).

Did you know that the Knicks are the only team to have all members of their starting five (mentioned above) in the Hall of Fame? Not even the vaunted Celtics can claim that!

Also add in the variations that inclucded John Lucas, Earl Monroe and Phil Jackson (where do you think he learned all that "triangle" defense from?).



I think you mean Jerry Lucas.

What does all this talk of the Knicks have to do with NFL Network?

Because their games were on free TV?

I'm sorry, but any REAL Knicks fan knows who the best were: Bradley, Debusschre, Reed, Frazier and Barnett, coached by "Red" Holzman. Also add in the variations that inclucded John Lucas, Earl Monroe and Phil Jackson (where do you think he learned all that "triangle" defense from?).

Did you know that the Knicks are the only team to have all members of their starting five (mentioned above) in the Hall of Fame? Not even the vaunted Celtics can claim that!
Sorry about the OT stuff Remy. But I have to say,

Humm, that is true and not true, those are the real KNICKS that you wrote about, but those are just out of my generation. I was 2 when they won it all in 73. All I really knew was the bully knicks of the 80's & 90's that didn't let anyone bring that s@#$ to their house. Day in and day out you knew they will bring a good chance for a title. Sure they never got it, But we sure loved the rides that got them there. These are the knicks I have known, not these me first over paid all-star wannabes that have come together to make any teams bright spot on a schedule.
Which gets us back to why Nolan is not the sole responsibilty of the MSG name degrade. He hires people to build winners. So he doesn't have to get his hands wet. Something any good owner would do especially when you have your hands in so many other products. You hire someone that is competent to run your product for a profit. But his hirings have back fired and have brought his teams to laughing stock status. It is time for him to make the move a owner should and fire them both. But the damage is done, a new person would not be able to make a big change for years.

Back to the topic. The coverage wasn't that bad. You guys made it worse then it was. They aren't good but they need time to gel. Wasn't it on their broadcast when one asked a question and the air was dead for a few seconds. That is the worst type of problem. Get mr Gumbels brother for the job, now that is a true announcer. Keep Bryant in the studio.

So back to the NFLN -- seems that TWC "won" the first season. As long as I have cable and not a dish there are about 185 games a year that I cannot see now (11 a week x 17 weeks but some weeks I get an extra game because of where I live.) So the NFLN moves 8 of those games to somewhere else I cannot see them and wants me to pay for them somehow. I guess I miss the logic in that. I will just have to live with the $4 a month increase that TWC has added today for no new services -- oh wait I now get MTVHD and A&EHD and TVONE. But INHD2 is no longer -- not TWC's fault but they are not going to decrease the $6.95 a month I pay for the tier it is on! TWC must have some really good stuff in their coffee!

So back to the NFLN -- seems that TWC "won" the first season. As long as I have cable and not a dish there are about 185 games a year that I cannot see now (11 a week x 17 weeks but some weeks I get an extra game because of where I live.) So the NFLN moves 8 of those games to somewhere else I cannot see them and wants me to pay for them somehow. I guess I miss the logic in that. I will just have to live with the $4 a month increase that TWC has added today for no new services -- oh wait I now get MTVHD and A&EHD and TVONE. But INHD2 is no longer -- not TWC's fault but they are not going to decrease the $6.95 a month I pay for the tier it is on! TWC must have some really good stuff in their coffee!

You do the best job of undermining your own arguements in your own post of anyone on AVS.

According to your post, TWC did not increase or decrease your HD Tier price of $6.95.

for no new services -- oh wait I now get MTVHD and A&EHD and TVONE. But INHD2 is no longer -- not TWC's fault but they are not going to decrease the $6.95 a month I pay for the tier it is on! TWC must have some really good stuff in their coffee!

So one folded and it was replaced by several.

The $4 increase came from price increases on the SD tiers from contracts that had built in price increases in the contract - something you apparently want them to do with the NFLN - to the tune of the 3rd most expensive channel on TWC.

Again, no one is keeping you from calling TWC and cancelling service.

No -- none of the new services were added to the HD tier. The HD tier in our area are channels 930 - 950. We used to have 6 channels in that area now we have 5. The MTV and A&E were added to the "free" HD area 800 - 850.The $6.95 is really for ESPNHD and some other stuff that is all repeats. But HDFA will find fault with my post because that is what HDFA does to almost all of us.

Oh.....so, now you are saying that your bill went up $4 - originally you said you got nothing - and now you say you got all these new HD channels on the "free" tier.

You need to make up your mind and your half baked arguements that fall apart on face value.

I hate to break it to you, but just like most things in life, there is no free lunch.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

You as the consumer have the final say so - if you don't like the service or feel its worth it, call and cancel.

What goes around comes around.

By Anne Becker & John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 1/1/2007

Court TV has been pulled from the Echostar satellite service after the two sides failed to agree on a new contract. Court TV went dark on Dish as of 12:01 Jan. 1.

Court TV parent company Turner issued the following statement: “We were unable to reach an agreement with Echostar and, as a result, we had no choice but to discontinue their carriage of Court TV."

Turner suggested that customers could switch to competitor DirecTV, or cable, if they wanted to keep getting Court TV.

"They were unwilling to pay the standard industry rate for a popular network that is currently ranked in the Top 20. We are disappointed with their decision, and hope that we can reach resolution," said Turner, "but in the meantime, our cable operator partners and DirecTV are able to provide this network to Court TV fans.”

I bet they weren't asking 80 cents per sub either.

Hmmm ... (from www.multichannel.com)
______________________________________________

NFL Network Ponders Digital Carriage
By Tom Steinert-Threlkeld1/8/2007 3:37:00 PM

Las Vegas -- NFL Network will consider strategies for its second year of operation that include some forms of distribution on digital-cable tiers, a top network executive said Monday at the International Consumer Electronics Show here.

“We need to find a business model that works for all parties involved,” said Adam Shaw, senior vice president of distribution at NFL Network, in comments made after a panel entitled “Television 2.0.”

Two options Shaw said the network will consider are: 100% basic distribution during the football season and digital carriage off-season; and 100% basic distribution in markets that have National Football League teams, with digital carriage in other markets.

Cable operators such as Time Warner Cable and Cablevision Systems -- the two largest operators in the New York area -- have balked at delivering the network to all of their basic subscribers.

The network only telecasts eight games per season, and it is believed to be asking for 70 cents per month, per subscriber for its all-NFL, all-the-time programming, which puts it among the highest-cost networks vying for basic carriage.

Shaw said NFL Network will also look at beefing up the kinds of “enhanced services” it can provide to make its programming more attractive to cable operators and their viewing customers.

These could include an interactive feed of statistics and scores that viewers could access while watching; “instant” video clips; and add-ons, such as a library of video clips organized by NFL player that can be fed to viewers who play in fantasy-football leagues.

NFL Network achieved distribution to approximately 40 million basic-cable households in its first season, where it had hoped to get 70 million or more homes.

Shaw said negotiations to gain broader distribution for the network’s second season will kick off in two weeks, he said. That’s when he says he is set to sit down for lunch with Time Warner Cable’s new programming negotiator, executive VP of programming Melinda Witmer.

Time Warner was “perfectly reasonable,” Shaw said, when the network negotiated carriage in late December of a college-football bowl game involving Rutgers University of New Jersey, for which NFL Network held the rights.

Two options Shaw said the network will consider are: 100% basic distribution during the football season and digital carriage off-season; and 100% basic distribution in markets that have National Football League teams, with digital carriage in other markets.
Those considerations sound much more reasonable to me.

With Cablevision and TWC in NYC both having 75% penetration of their digital tiers there is no reason that they shouldn't be allowed to carry it on the digital tier year round. Get off your high horse NFL, I could care less about a few more games that I probably won't watch anyway. Anytime you show the Giants I will still get the game on a OTA station. Lower your price and suck it up.

Those considerations sound much more reasonable to me.

Considering that they know with the exception of LA (which of course they would allow New Orleans to move to if TWC took this TV deal), they know that their teams cover the all the other Major TV Ad Revenue Markets and thus would have basic 24x7x365, its still a BS proposal that does nothing - especially as the they did not say they were will to cut the price considerably.

Even during the season, as shown above, no one cared about their reruns on off days.

So now that TWC has finally signed a carriage agreement with Sinclair, I wonder if the NFL Network will be up on deck for discussion. It looks like Sinclair was able to get TWC to agree to approximately 49-55 cents per subscriber for major network programming.

As much as I love the NFL, I just don't see how the fledgling NFLN can get more than a major broadcast network for digital carriage. During the season and around the draft it is great but for the other 30 weeks of the year, I'm more focused on other sports. Does anyone believe TWC will pay the NFL's asking price of 50-75 cents per subscriber?

So now that TWC has finally signed a carriage agreement with Sinclair, I wonder if the NFL Network will be up on deck for discussion. It looks like Sinclair was able to get TWC to agree to approximately 49-55 cents per subscriber for major network programming.

As much as I love the NFL, I just don't see how the fledgling NFLN can get more than a major broadcast network for digital carriage. During the season and around the draft it is great but for the other 30 weeks of the year, I'm more focused on other sports. Does anyone believe TWC will pay the NFL's asking price of 50-75 cents per subscriber?
There is no way, when they agreed 49-55 for the networks that make them the big bucks. The only question about that is that 49-55 will trickle down the pipe to all of us also which means areas that weren't paying for HD willhave to pay for it now. This really will be my only worry. One question, Is that 49-55 for all the big 6 combined?or just one of the big 6? ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, MYnet & CW

From November 2006

COMPETITION IN SPORTS PROGRAMMING AND BROADCASTING: ARE CONSUMERS WINNING? (http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2440&wit_id=5843)

From November 2006

COMPETITION IN SPORTS PROGRAMMING AND BROADCASTING: ARE CONSUMERS WINNING? (http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2440&wit_id=5843)

interesting...he's mostly complaining about "must carry" rules that don't apply to satellite

interesting...he's mostly complaining about "must carry" rules that don't apply to satelliteNo, if you read the whole thing, he's actually complaining about spiraling costs, the fragmentation of TV sports rights, tiering restrictions, and the NFL's use of the antitrust exemption Congress gave it.

But it appears he is wary of having the government craft a solution, and in fact he'd rather Congress look at existing rules to see if they're contributing to trends like these. (That is not surprising, of course, since TWC's parent company owns several cable networks and would no doubt be hurt by the very regulation many viewers are calling for: a la carte.)

Jim Dolan, CEO of Cablevision, said on a radio show earlier this week that Cablevision will not carry NFL Network until they can get Sunday Ticket. He said the channel as it now stands is overpriced for what it shows. He also stated that even if NFLN has a Giants or Jets game NY will still get the game on a local station.

Jim Dolan, CEO of Cablevision, said on a radio show earlier this week that Cablevision will not carry NFL Network until they can get Sunday Ticket. He said the channel as it now stands is overpriced for what it shows. He also stated that even if NFLN has a Giants or Jets game NY will still get the game on a local station.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Nah.
The NFL Network service is overpriced and should be on a digital tier with all the other specialty networks [Fox Soccer, SPEED, etc], and be priced per sub accordingly.
Time Warner had said the same in regard to its NYC area systems.
It isn't worth it for 8 games a season - less if any of those games has a NYC-area team on it, then it has to go over-the-air, per the NFL's own broadcast rules.
Can't get anything for free, but overpaying for so little is just crazy.

There is only one NFL Network New York game this year -- the season-ending Pats-at-Giants game.

Nah.
The NFL Network service is overpriced and should be on a digital tier with all the other specialty networks [Fox Soccer, SPEED, etc], and be priced per sub accordingly.
Time Warner had said the same in regard to its NYC area systems.
It isn't worth it for 8 games a season - less if any of those games has a NYC-area team on it, then it has to go over-the-air, per the NFL's own broadcast rules.
Can't get anything for free, but overpaying for so little is just crazy.

I guess it is overpriced but it is a good network and I watch it some more so during the summer months leading up to and through training camp. I will also watch leading up to the draft. I find during the season I watch occasionally but I watch so much football that I need a break during the week. I guess the good news for the one's that don't have it is you don't have to listen to Gumbel and Collingsworth do the games as they are just plain horrible to the point I don't watch the games sometimes.

There is only one NFL Network New York game this year

Same as last year and we got that game on WNBC.

Frankly, I believe all sports networks, either specialized, regional or general, including ESPN, should be available -- or not -- depending on what a customer wishes.

That would drive the cost per sub way up, but I see no reason why those who don't watch sports should help pay the freight for those of us who do.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Sounds like a realist to me.

I find it fascinating that cable companies find sports networks overpriced and fight tooth and nail "for the consumers" -- at least until they get a piece of the action.

Then they happily somehow seem to find the price not so bad after all as they make every sub pay for them.

If the NFL would just cut the cable companies into, say 20% of the pie, it would get almost universal carriage with no complaints.

If the NFL needs a road map, just call Bob Dupuy at MLB.

Frankly, I believe all sports networks, either specialized, regional or general, including ESPN, should be available -- or not -- depending on what a customer wishes.

That would drive the cost per sub way up, but I see no reason why those who don't watch sports should help pay the freight for those of us who do.

We are getting to the point that each sports league will have it's on channel. Soon they can cut out ESPN, TNT etc and run the national cable games on their own channel.

The 2012 Super Bowl will be on NFL Network!

I find it fascinating that cable companies find sports networks overpriced and fight tooth and nail "for the consumers" -- at least until they get a piece of the action.

Then they happily somehow seem to find the price not so bad after all as they make every sub pay for them.

If the NFL would just cut the cable companies into, say 20% of the pie, it would get almost universal carriage with no complaints.

If the NFL needs a road map, just call Bob Dupuy at MLB.

The NFL doesn't need to do that. If they need any more leverage, they'll just increase the number of games they carry.

The MSOs will buckle eventually.

Not sure if that would work -- seems CBS, Fox, NBC, and ESPN might be pissed about that and not pay as much for their rights.

I am as hard core a sports fan as you can get(except for NBA and NASCAR) but I could care less if we get the NFL network. I can only watch now what they want me to. All they have said is here are 8 less games you can't see. Remember on a normal weekend we only get to see 5 of the 16 games played. I can't have the NFL pack so I just watch whatever they show and if it not a good game -- click!

I really don't care about the replays and the draft is a major waste of my time! I buy MLB -EI but the new baseball channel we are supposed to get in 2009 means nothing to me.

Some changes but, mostly, more of the same from the NFL Network this year:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/cabletv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003574623

NFL Games to Stay on League-Owned Net

John Consoli

APRIL 23, 2007 -


With rumors circulating that the National Football League was considering putting up for re-bid its eight-game, Thursday-Saturday package airing on the NFL Network, now comes confirmation that the games are staying put on the league-owned cable net.

Pat Bowlen, owner of the Denver Broncos and chairman of the NFL’s broadcasting committee, told Mediaweek that team owners plan for the network to continue to air the games for the duration of the current rights deal, which expires five years from now.

The network has been unable to do carriage pacts with major cable operators Time Warner and Cablevision, contributing to low first-season ratings (1.9 in households, according to Nielsen Media Research). NFL Network pays $400 million a year to air the games, but Bowlen said the deal was more about establishing the network long-term than making money at the outset.

“The owners’ decision to put the games on the NFL Network was to help build a 24-7 network about football,” Bowlen explained. “That is our goal. We’re not concerned about making more money on another TV rights deal. We want to create a year round football network.”
Despite hearsay, Bowlen said no team owner had talked to him about putting the games back up for bid.

“They realize we are building an asset, and that it is not going to happen overnight,” he said. “Every startup operation loses money for a while. But it is a priority to have these end-of-the-season games on the NFL Network.”

Bowlen’s comments come just before the network’s upfront presentation to advertisers and media agencies in New York City on April 25. At the upfront, the net is expected to announce some tweaks to its NFL pre-game and game coverage, as well as the addition of another night of NFL game replays, the return of its Playbook show and a major revamp of its Web site. The net will also unveil plans to air the NFL draft on April 28 and 29 (competing with live draft coverage on ESPN), as well as offer draft coverage online and via Sprint mobile phones.

Ron Furman, senior vp of media sales at the NFL Network, said many programming changes resulted from viewer input.

One change: the return of Playbook, an X’s and O’s show on which analysts break down games for the coming weekend. Originally a standalone show, last year it became a shorter segment on the nightly NFL Total Access. Now, it will air for an hour every Thursday night and half-hours on Friday and Saturday. The show now will focus exclusively on upcoming games, unlike previously, when it also looked at past games.

The network will also add another pre-seaon game, as well as another night of game replays. Last season, the net aired two replay games on Tuesday and two on Wednesday. This season, it adds a fifth replay game on Monday night, either at 7 or 7:30. The replay games are not just straight repeats but include bells and whistles such as miked-up players and lockerroom footage.

“A lot of people wondered what kind of response we would get to these replays last season,” Furman said. “But the fans have voted, and they liked them, so we are adding another game on another night.”

The network’s pre-game show, which last season ran three hours and was broadcast entirely on-site, now will originate in the studio for the first hour, followed by two hours at the game site.

“The first hour in the studio will allow them to break down the game strategy better than on a live location,” Furman explained.

Kick-off of the Thursday and Saturday games will be moved back to 8:15 p.m. from 8:05. Furman said the move will allow announcers more time to set up the game, and allow the audience to build. “Research shows that HUT levels grow increasingly as that first half hour moves along,” he said.

NFL Network also plans to reimagine its Web site with a soft relaunch in August, followed by a heavily promoted relaunch concurrent with the start of the NFL season in September.
And for the first time, the network will cover the NFL draft, along with ESPN. Steve Mariucci and Deion Sanders, analysts on the NFL pre-game show, will join host Rich Eisen on the two-day telecast.

In addition to its eight-game regular season package and pre-season game coverage, the NFL Network next season will air the Pro Football Hall of Fame pre-season game, pitting the New Orleans Saints against the Pittsburgh Steelers. NBC carried the game last year.
NFL Network in August will introduce a half-hour college football show, airing daily Tuesday to Friday at 6:30 p.m. and leading into NFL Total Access.

Media buyers, none of whom would comment for attribution, said that while all of NFL Network’s shoulder programming is good, the live games are the real draw, since the network can use those games to package deals for other programming.

“ESPN has a lot of sports shoulder programming, but what draws the most viewers in is live sports telecasts,” one buyer said. “The sports leagues that have their own networks have a hurdle to overcome since they can only show live games of their sport in-season, not year-round. And getting advertisers to get excited over shoulder programming out of season is sometimes a difficult task.”

Some changes but, mostly, more of the same from the NFL Network this year:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/cabletv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003574623

NFL Games to Stay on League-Owned Net

John Consoli

APRIL 23, 2007 -


Last season, the net aired two replay games on Tuesday and two on Wednesday. This season, it adds a fifth replay game on Monday night, either at 7 or 7:30. The replay games are not just straight repeats but include bells and whistles such as miked-up players and lockerroom footage.

“A lot of people wondered what kind of response we would get to these replays last season,” Furman said. “But the fans have voted, and they liked them, so we are adding another game on another night.”


Guess its easy to BS some people.

I guess they didn't look at the Wednesday night rating I posted back in December - if they think 104,000 people is a vote of confidence of liking something...... :rolleyes:

BUMP!

back from the dead.

Anybody know if THESE games will be HD (when available)?

NFL Classic games coming to NFL Network Click here to find out more!



New series featuring original network broadcasts airs Thursday nights starting May 10

NEW YORK (May 7, 2007) -- The complete network broadcasts of classic NFL regular season and playoff games are coming to NFL Network -- exclusively.

The first NFL game to be televised came in 1939. Over the seven decades since, more than 12,000 NFL regular-season games, plus an additional 400-plus playoff games have been played.

None have been seen since their live airing -- until now.

This expansive collection -- the greatest untapped library in sports or entertainment -- has nearly 70 years worth of games to choose from and NFL Network will begin to show them.

Following the successful debut of Super Bowl Classics in January, NFL Network takes advantage of this vast library to bring viewers some of the most memorable games from the NFL regular and postseason.

NFL Classics gives fans an opportunity to see these great games again ... or in many cases, for the first time. But viewers beware -- not all games feature the yellow first-down line, constant score boxes or the CableCam vantage point.

NFL Classics debuts Thursday, May 10 at 8 p.m. ET with the Chicago Bears-Arizona Cardinals Monday night clash from last season. Each game features the original announcers and network graphics.

NFL Classics airs throughout the spring on Thursdays at 8 p.m. ET with encore performances Fridays at 4 p.m. ET.

Other classics featured include the New York Jets epic victory over the Miami Dolphins on Monday Night Football in 2000 and the Bills record-setting comeback Wild Card win over the Houston Oilers in 1993.

NFL Network has truly become the year-round home for football fans. Now with NFL Classics to go along with Super Bowl Classics, 100 NFL Replay games during the season (90-minute versions of the five best games from the weekend), plus 52 preseason games, eight primetime regular season games and 31 NFL Europa games, add in a few college bowl games and NFL Network is treating football fans 365 days a year.

Following is the NFL Classics schedule for May:

May 10 at 8 p.m. ET
Chicago Bears vs. Arizona Cardinals (ESPN, 2006)
Down 20-0 at halftime, the Bears returned two fumbles for touchdowns in the second half and rookie sensation Devin Hester had an 83-yard punt return score as Chicago defeated Arizona 24-23 on Monday Night Football.

May 17 at 8 p.m. ET
Indianapolis Colts vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (ABC, 2003)
The Buccaneers led 28-7 entering the fourth quarter, but a kickoff-return touchdown and two Peyton Manning touchdown passes sent the game to overtime where Mike Vanderjagt kicked the Colts to a 38-35 victory.

May 24 at 8 p.m. ET
Miami Dolphins vs. New York Jets (ABC, 2000)
The Jets erased a 23-point deficit behind quarterback Vinny Testaverde, who threw four touchdown passes to lead New York to a 40-37 overtime win.

May 31 at 8 p.m. ET
Houston Oilers vs. Buffalo Bills (NBC, 1993)
The Bills trailed 35-3 in the second half of the 1993 AFC Wild Card game before executing the greatest comeback in NFL history (32-point deficit in second half) to win 41-38 in overtime.

NFL Network airs seven days a week, 24 hours a day on a year-round basis and is the first television network fully dedicated to the NFL and the sport of football. For more information, log onto www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/home.

May 15, 2007
The New York Times
By RICHARD SANDOMIR

It’s been a long time since anyone viewed the National Football League as marginal in any way. Market muscle and viewership explain why the N.F.L. gets more television money than any other league and why the NFL Network was conceived as having nearly limitless appeal.

Then came Bernard J. Fried, a Time Warner customer who, like me, cannot get the NFL Network. Fried is a New York State Supreme Court justice who, in a decision that he wrote May 4 but did not release until last Thursday, ruled that Comcast could move the NFL Network from a broad digital cable service to a much-less-viewed digital sports tier.

Fried agreed that Comcast had the contractual right to shift the NFL Network to its sports tier if it could not make a deal for (a) the cultish Sunday Ticket package of out-of-market games, which remained exclusive to DirecTV, or (b) a new eight-game, late-season package of N.F.L. games for Versus. The N.F.L. rejected Comcast’s offer of about $400 million a year for the eight games last year, then added them to the NFL Network with a monthly surcharge of 55 cents a subscriber.

Versus, which is owned by Comcast, no doubt would have upped its fee from its current 13 cents a subscriber, according to Kagan Research, if it had gotten those games.

The league has filed a notice of appeal of Fried’s decision to the state Appellate Division, and Comcast is telling its affiliates to get ready to move the channel to a sports tier. “We’re not going quietly and will continue to fight for what’s right,” said Seth Palansky, a spokesman for the NFL Network.

(Some level of quiet will continue; Fried sealed the case early on at the N.F.L.’s request. Only a hearing transcript is public record, and the league is unlikely to ask for the file to be unsealed.)

Fried’s ruling, if it is upheld, would do away with the NFL Network for about 6.5 million Comcast subscribers, while 750,000 would be able to see it on a sports tier for about $5 a month. The decision will almost certainly lead Time Warner, Cablevision and Charter, the largest cable operators that do not offer the channel, to seek the right to carry it on a sports tier.

“I don’t know if the decision is precedential,” said Fred Dressler, a former Time Warner Cable executive and lead programming negotiator, “but it will help other cable operators. They’ll say, ‘If you sold it to Comcast that way, you ought to sell it to everybody else that way.’ ”

He added that those with existing deals could only capitalize on an anti-NFL Network decision if their contracts allow them to match better terms of carriage given to Comcast.

“Right now, I feel the decision is unique to Comcast,” Dressler said.

Fried’s ruling is a crowd-pleaser for cable operators who believe that sports networks are too expensive and belong on tiers that require subscribers to pay extra. Their mantra is that the broad swath of customers on expanded or digital basic should not have to pay for what only a narrow slice of sports lovers desires.

But operators have not exiled overpriced sports channels to tiers. High-priced regional sports networks like YES, NESN and SNY still abound on expanded basic, as do ESPN and ESPN2; but newer channels like Fuel, CSTV, the Tennis Channel and the Fox College Sports channels are sports-tier mainstays. NBA TV’s incongruous presence on sports tiers like Time Warner’s stamps it as a niche channel with 12 million subscribers.

If the NFL Network were consigned to sports tiers, it would make those packages more attractive. That would be an empty victory for the NFL Network, which says its presence helps cable and satellite operators add new digital subscribers. But the NFL Network game is flawed: all its games are simulcast on local broadcast stations in teams’ markets, meaning home fans are not inconvenienced if a cable operator refuses to carry the channel.

There are, as yet, no legal challenges to the growth of the nascent MLB Channel. It will not start until 2009, and we know almost nothing about what it will be beyond being “crucial” to the survival of the sport, as Bob DuPuy, the president of Major League Baseball, said during Capitol Hill testimony.

The tortuous talks behind the recent MLB Channel deal — which featured the use of access to the Extra Innings package of out-of-market games as leverage against cable operators — led to a subscriber universe of 40 million on digital basic, and none on sports tiers. That success would have been impossible had baseball not given a 17 percent stake in the channel to DirecTV and a second 17 percent stake to the InDemand cable consortium (Comcast, Time Warner and Cox), but not to Cablevision.

The NFL Network has not traded parts of itself to snare more subscribers.

If it did, it might be in almost every home.

E-mail: sportsbiz@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/sports/15sandomir.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=sports&pagewanted=print

NFL Network setback could help cable TV
By JEFFREY FLANAGAN, Columnist

If you’re one of the 300,000 Time Warner customers in Kansas City already getting antsy about the prospects of not having the NFL Network again this fall, there may be hope.

A recent court ruling allowed another cable giant, Comcast, to move the NFL Network off its broad digital package to a specialized sports tier.

And that may be good news for Time Warner, which has maintained from the start that it would prefer to put the NFL Network on a sports tier package, and not on any basic packages.

“Naturally we can’t comment on a legal action that we’re not involved in,” Time Warner Kansas City director of public affairs Damon Porter said of the Comcast ruling.

“But I will say that (the ruling) validates our position from the beginning of our negotiations (with the NFL Network) that we don’t want to burden the basic subscribers with something we consider a specialty item. We feel the NFL Network belongs on a sports tier.”

Porter said he wasn’t sure whether the Comcast ruling might serve to speed up negotiations between Time Warner and the NFL Network.

“We’re continuing to talk with them,” Porter said. “And we’re hopeful we can get a deal done by this fall. We have nothing against football or the NFL. We want the NFL Network. We just want it on a sports tier so that the customers who really want it can get it there and those that don’t want it, don’t have to pay for it.”

The NFL Network, by the way, has suggested it will appeal the Comcast ruling.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/story/109030.html

I found this segment of a Q&A with Time Warner Senior VP and Chief Programming Officer Melinda Witmer to be very interesting.

And so for us, the analysis is always what’s the product we’re going to deliver and how we can deliver the most compelling video product we possibly can for a reasonable price that consumers are willing to pay. So whether it’s the Big Ten Network, the NFL Network, MASN [Mid-Atlantic Sports Network], or whomever, the No. 1 consideration is, do our customers want this? How important is this content to these customers?

What we found with the NFL last year is that very few of our customers even complained, much less left us. I don’t know whether anyone knew for sure exactly how that would come out, but what we found going into it is that we weren’t really hearing from our customers that this was going to be a must-have for them.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6461992.html

I found this segment of a Q&A with Time Warner Senior VP and Chief Programming Officer Melinda Witmer to be very interesting.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6461992.html

I think that is all posturing for negotiations. TWC knows it needs the NFL Network to compete against all of the other options out there today, they just want to humble the NFL into accepting distribution on a sports tier. I think it will work out that the NFL Network will be on basic for SD and available for pay on the HD tier before the first game airs on the NFL Network this fall.

I'm far from being on TWC's side on this one but the NFL was asking for outrageous fees for basically 4 live games (with sub-standard broadcast support) and a daily hour long football centric Sportscenter clone.

I think that is all posturing for negotiations. TWC knows it needs the NFL Network to compete against all of the other options out there today, they just want to humble the NFL into accepting distribution on a sports tier. I think it will work out that the NFL Network will be on basic for SD and available for pay on the HD tier before the first game airs on the NFL Network this fall.

I'm far from being on TWC's side on this one but the NFL was asking for outrageous fees for basically 4 live games (with sub-standard broadcast support) and a daily hour long football centric Sportscenter clone.

I agree. TWC seems, for once, to be fighting the good fight on behalf of their subscribers. There's already plenty of football on TV and these 4 games are not the stuff of which cancelled subscriptions are made. We can easily do without them, and the overly-ambitious & greedy NFL Network (and I'm a huge football fan and a Panthers season ticket holder).

You are lucky you don't have to listen to that dope Gumble which I shut off a few times last year why he is still there is beyond me.

I think that is all posturing for negotiations. TWC knows it needs the NFL Network to compete against all of the other options out there today, they just want to humble the NFL into accepting distribution on a sports tier. I think it will work out that the NFL Network will be on basic for SD and available for pay on the HD tier before the first game airs on the NFL Network this fall.

You really think so? I don't. I think both sides are dug into their positions. While the NFL would love to have TWC's subscriber base, they by no means NEED it. And, I don't think TWC particularly cares about their subscribers complaining about not having the NFL Network-- heck, they're saying that they haven't heard any customer gripes (which is a croc), and don't see any customers defecting to satellite (also a croc).

So, I'd be surprised if you see a deal again this year. I love the NFL and would love to have those 8 games (as well as the other programming, which, I admit, appeals mostly to NFL fanatics like me) ... but, not enough to go satellite with all the associated hassles.

Maybe not enough to go to Sat, but what about FIOS. They carry it too, and they're adding marketing almost constantly.

The world of MSOs has finally changed (or is changing depending on availability) and TWC needs to realize that there is finally real competition.

Maybe not enough to go to Sat, but what about FIOS. They carry it too, and they're adding marketing almost constantly.

The world of MSOs has finally changed (or is changing depending on availability) and TWC needs to realize that there is finally real competition.

No (other than satellite) comp for TWC here in (Raleigh/Durham) NC. You would think our local telco (Bell South, now AT&T) would be anxious to compete, but a recent article said that they will not do anything here until 2010 at the earliest.

You really think so? I don't. I think both sides are dug into their positions. While the NFL would love to have TWC's subscriber base, they by no means NEED it. And, I don't think TWC particularly cares about their subscribers complaining about not having the NFL Network-- heck, they're saying that they haven't heard any customer gripes (which is a croc), and don't see any customers defecting to satellite (also a croc).

So, I'd be surprised if you see a deal again this year. I love the NFL and would love to have those 8 games (as well as the other programming, which, I admit, appeals mostly to NFL fanatics like me) ... but, not enough to go satellite with all the associated hassles.

Fair enough, I still believe that the NFL & TWC will work it out before the first NFL Network only game is broadcast. Carriage squabbles aside, they both recognize the value of having each other as a partner.

I believe the NFL is in a negotiating mood as the Michael Vick drama unfolds. They need their 24/7 NFL Network feed pumped into your home to give you the propagandized spin on everything positive happening in the league.

Don't look for the NBA to be trying to get a bigger TV deal anytime soon either....

Don't look for the NBA to be trying to get a bigger TV deal anytime soon either....

Luckily for them, they just re-upped with ABC/ESPN for huge dollars:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2918089

Luckily for them, they just re-upped with ABC/ESPN for huge dollars:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2918089

Considering that was pretty much a press release from the NBA, this was the line that caught my attention "Financial details were not immediately disclosed."

Seems as if it were more than the last contract, they would have wanted it to be included in the copy. I doubt Disney is paying more per year than the previous contract and that was before ref-gate.

Comast now has a deal where you can get the sports tier for $1.99 a month for the next 12 months......now there's no reason not to have the NFL Network if you have Comcast.[it expires on 8/31 btw]......I called Comcast to ask about that deal and found out it's not available in the Chicago area.so no NFL Network for me :(

Considering that they know with the exception of LA (which of course they would allow New Orleans to move to if TWC took this TV deal), they know that their teams cover the all the other Major TV Ad Revenue Markets and thus would have basic 24x7x365, its still a BS proposal that does nothing - especially as the they did not say they were will to cut the price considerably.

Even during the season, as shown above, no one cared about their reruns on off days.

Considering that they know with the exception of LA (which of course they would allow New Orleans to move to if TWC took this TV deal)

what?????? why in the world would you believe that the saints would move because of a deal with a cable company?

Considering that they know with the exception of LA (which of course they would allow New Orleans to move to if TWC took this TV deal)

what?????? why in the world would you believe that the saints would move because of a deal with a cable company?

If the Saints move anywhere, it will be to San Antonio. Tom Benson is originally from here and he and Red McCombs are good friends. Benson was going to move them here 18 months ago before the NFL gave Benson a big cash incentive and the state of LA made good on their payments for 2005 & 2006 to stay put and not draw negative publicity by leaving N.O. after the hurricane.

If the Saints move anywhere, it will be to San Antonio. Tom Benson is originally from here and he and Red McCombs are good friends. Benson was going to move them here 18 months ago before the NFL gave Benson a big cash incentive and the state of LA made good on their payments for 2005 & 2006 to stay put and not draw negative publicity by leaving N.O. after the hurricane.

Not to thread jack...but the Saints will NOT be moving to SA. The NFL has said that SA is not on the list of cities they are interested in. You guys are living in a fantasy world.

Not to thread jack...but the Saints will NOT be moving to SA. The NFL has said that SA is not on the list of cities they are interested in. You guys are living in a fantasy world.

What else would they say to placate loudmouth Jerry Jones when the decision to stay in N.O. for now had already been made? Kind of like when an owner says the coach has their full confidence and then fires them 4 weeks later. If Benson decides he wants to move the team after the post Katrina goodwill from the league subsides, then the issue will be decided.

I believe the NFL is in a negotiating mood as the Michael Vick drama unfolds. They need their 24/7 NFL Network feed pumped into your home to give you the propagandized spin on everything positive happening in the league.You hit the nail on the head.

If the Saints move anywhere, it will be to San Antonio. Tom Benson is originally from here and he and Red McCombs are good friends. Benson was going to move them here 18 months ago before the NFL gave Benson a big cash incentive and the state of LA made good on their payments for 2005 & 2006 to stay put and not draw negative publicity by leaving N.O. after the hurricane.

san antonio is not even an option for the saints to move. no big league stadium, they couldnt even sell out games and had to pretty much give tickets away, and last I heard they couldnt even sellout spurs playoff tickets. san antonio is an afterthought in the nfl arena, and the way that the cities leaders acted after a tragedy like katrina means that I will never spend a dollar there, no matter what. The saints arent moving anyway, that is at best a pipedream.

If the Saints move anywhere, it will be to San Antonio. Tom Benson is originally from here and he and Red McCombs are good friends. Benson was going to move them here 18 months ago before the NFL gave Benson a big cash incentive and the state of LA made good on their payments for 2005 & 2006 to stay put and not draw negative publicity by leaving N.O. after the hurricane.

Keep dreaming. San Antonio will not be getting an NFL team for a long, long, long time.

In addition, the Saints aren't going anywhere with the new additions to the Dome AND a soon-to-be-Gov that has actual plans to keep them here another 50 years.

The saints arent moving anyway, that is at best a pipedream.
I lived in Maryland my first 50 years. That the Colts could move away never entered our minds.

Time Warner customers denied access to high-def games.
By Swanni

Washington, D.C. (August 12, 2007) -- The NFL Network is broadcasting 34 pre-season games and eight regular season games in HD this season. But Time Warner Cable subscribers may not see any of them.

The Corpus Christi Caller-Times reports that the cable operator is still battling the NFL Network over programming fees and package rights. Consequently, Time Warner has not added the channel to its standard or high-def lineup.

At issue is Time Warner's insistence that it offer the channel in a separate sports tier which costs subscribers an additional $8.95 a month.

"There has not been any change or progress in our negotiations," Time Warner spokeswoman Vicki Triplett told the newspaper. "The cost (to carry the NFL Network) is a large amount, so what we want to do is make it to where people who are only interested in sports can pay for it, rather than make all customers pay for it."

But NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky suggested the cable operator is trying to use the channel to boost its profits.

"Time Warner wants the network on a sports tier -- where fans would have to pay extra," he said. "That's not something we're willing to do -- have our fans exploited for Time Warner's profits."

He added: "Ultimately, we want to deal with Time Warner, but until they prove they have our fans' best interests in mind, we're reluctant to turn the network into a pay-per-view option."

Comcast, the nation's largest cable operator, recently added NFL Network HD (and standard def channel) to its sports tier in select cities. A New York State Supreme Court judge ruled that Comcast could include the NFL Network in its sports tier rather than the basic digital tier, as requested by the network.

(Unlike Time Warner, Comcast had already purchased the rights to carry the channel so they could move it to the sports tier after the judge's decision.)

In his decision, the judge noted that the NFL had awarded DIRECTV with the exclusive rights to carry the NFL Sunday Ticket.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/twnfl081207.htm

Those who want to watch these games should pay extra for them. The NFL is greedier than the cable companies (if that's possible).

I predict that the NFL Network will be on TWC before the first regular season "NFL Network" exclusive game is played this year on Thanksgiving (11/22). Last year was a standoff that the league was will to play to the end because they thought TWC would lose many customers without the NFLN.

It didn't happen and TWC is now in a position of power. I look for the NFL network to be in SD on some type of extended basic package and if you want it in HD, you'll pay for it on some type of tier that costs less than the currently proposed $8.95 per month. That way, the NFL saves face because they got "Joe Six-Pack" the NFLN for no increase in monthly fees. TWC saves face because it is also on a sports tier in HD for the serious fan (and if you have an HD setup, you'll gladly pay to get NFLN in HD).

Those who want to watch these games should pay extra for them. The NFL is greedier than the cable companies (if that's possible).

I want to watch the NFL Network games in HD (I'm an NFL junkie and, now that I have a 1080p LCD, an HD NFL junkie :D) but not if I have to pay for them any more than my current Time Warner Network monthly fee for regular and HD channels. Between TWC and NFL Network there's nobody for me to root for since I'm getting squeezed like a wet sponge by both monopolistic cash-hungry bitches that are TWC and the NFL. :mad:

The customer needs and wants "a la carte" cable choices. I don't want to pay for channels you watch and you shouldn't have to pay for my channels. If no one pays for a channel, then it will not be listed.

I laugh at Comcast and their 'Sports Tier'. They can stuff their Sports Tier in some unspeakable place, I'm not going to pay extra to watch 8 NFL games.

Foir ll you guys that revived this thread. Good for you get angry but the bottom line is you need to get angry you need to know where the money trail comes from. THE NFL Put all arguments asside. The NFL Network is trying to maximize their profit margin by elminating 8 gms from the schedule. It doesn't matter which town, county and City they piss off. They want to get a piece of the profit for these games. A piece of that profit that they already rake inb the big bucks. The NFL taKES IN $3.735 billion/yr JUST IN tv RIGHTSalone. So think of this All the money scored on NFLLB would be theirs. No sharing what so Ever. Advertiseing rev, shirt sales by the NFL stores. A lot less finacial plugs for these NFL net games that would have to share. Now it goes stright to them again, But now instead of sharing they are taking max profit then trying to make the cable companies put the NFL net on a basic service channel even though they know they are asking for a cost that rivals the pay premiums. They are making money from the top to the bottom on the deal. so they need tobite the bullet and let the fans decide. I am in NYC so any game that can't be braodcast to me because of stupidty like big money qurals , still gets broadcast on a teressteral channl so all that hoopla for not. But we really do have to get more proactive and l000et them know thAT we are not gonn" tak it. Come on everyone lef the NFL know that we as fiewers want the games but the charges have to go!!!!!!!

The customer needs and wants "a la carte" cable choices. I don't want to pay for channels you watch and you shouldn't have to pay for my channels. If no one pays for a channel, then it will not be listed.

First of all ... forget a la carte ... ain't happening. As much as you, me and thousands of others would like it-- the cable companies love the scam of filling the listings with tons of worthless channels to justify jacking up rates by 10% every year.

Second ... both the NFL and TWC are being extremely greedy in this. The NFL wants a basic cable slot so that they can get maximum revenue from a per subscriber carriage agreement. TWC, on the other hand, wants to put the NFL Network in a sports tier (which currently has VERY low subscription), knowing that thousands of subs will buy it just for the NFLN. And, then TWC would increase the cost of the sports tier from $2.95 to about $8.95. With the actual cost per subscriber of $.70-$1/sub for the NFLN, that would represent an over $5 profit/sub for TWC.

Face it, TWC sports nuts (I'm one of them)-- this isn't going to happen for us. If you want the NFLN, you need to go to DirectTV or Dish. For those of you that think one side will budge-- why do you think that? It's been 3 years now and neither side really needs the other. TWC doesn't really care what customers want in terms of programming (they've proven that over the years), and will accept the defector rate to satellite. The NFL doesn't need TWC subscribers, when just about every other major cable provider and both satellite carriers are already on board.

In the end, we all could take sides on this. I read many of your posts that say they are happy that TWC is taking a "stand"on this. If that's your opinion-- fine. But, don't be fooled about them doing this for you-- the customer. They are doing this for them-- to make gobs more profit (see above). And, I also read many posts that bash TWC and side with the NFL. I guess I lean slightly there because I see this network as a product. All companies that make something (i.e. a product) have the right to charge what the market bears and demand that their product is properly positioned. They have no interest in the NFLN being, in effect, a PPV option. Why should they when other so-called "sports niche" channels (Golf Channel, Speed Channel, Fox Soccer, etc.) have a basic cable position?

My opinion is that TWC believes they are the product-- and, not just the provider of products. Providers inherantly have a more customer focused attitude (like Comcast, DirectTV, and Dish). I have seen no indication that Time Warner will ever see themselves differently.

Here's some irony for you ... yesterday at 5:00, ABC showed an "NFL Pre-Season Special". It was an NFL Network production-- basically their flag ship show ("NFL Total Access"). I suppose ABC just purchased the show from the NFLN for re-broadcast. All right under TWC's nose.

Very good points mr Toad, but I have to commend you for taking this high road, because like you said we could argue until we are blue in the face but it isn't about us. It is 2 corp's that aren't budging untill someone says they have to. However I do disagree with you slightly on a couple of you points. So I thought we could have some intelligent banter.



First of all ... forget a la carte ... ain't happening. As much as you, me and thousands of others would like it-- the cable companies love the scam of filling the listings with tons of worthless channels to justify jacking up rates by 10% every year.

You are right here, a la carte will never happen, as for the worthlessness of the other channels. That is in the eye of the subscriber. I get to see viewing habits of a lot of people at one time and have notice that one mans sports only fetish(you) is another womens all cooking channels or a persons need for the same news 24/7. The Cable companies add channels because there is a need for them. Sure they might be so low rated that they might now show up on Neilsend radar. But each channel added is profit for TWC or any company that adds them. The increases in our bills are never casued by new channels they are cause by the older channels wanting more of the pie. Except when you get a channel that is requesting an insane amount like NFLnet, but more on that later. You have to remember I know your dislike for TWC but the increases happen across the board. TWC isn't the only one raising rates all the comanies are. There needs to be a regulation on how high will high enough be.

Second ... both the NFL and TWC are being extremely greedy in this. The NFL wants a basic cable slot so that they can get maximum revenue from a per subscriber carriage agreement. TWC, on the other hand, wants to put the NFL Network in a sports tier (which currently has VERY low subscription), knowing that thousands of subs will buy it just for the NFLN. And, then TWC would increase the cost of the sports tier from $2.95 to about $8.95. With the actual cost per subscriber of $.70-$1/sub for the NFLN, that would represent an over $5 profit/sub for TWC.

True and not true, TWC is protecting it's core subscribers. the ones that watch every one of those so called "crap channels" They are making a stand for the majority of their subscribers because the NFL net wants 70 cents per subscriber and they don't feel a Part time station is worth that. But unfortunately the true sports fan gets the shaft because if they do aggreee to a sport tier, you are absolutely correct, you and anyone who wants NFLnet gets hit the hardest. Unless NFL brings its price down. The bottom line in my view is the NFL over thought their greed. They held back these 8 games because they wanted to make more profit on their already profitable TV packages by getting the money straight for themselves. However it backfired because they have not locked up all the cable companies and they now have games that are not getting viewed in as wide of an area as they would like them to be. They made the mistake of overcharging for a PT network. How does an upstart newtowrk ask for more per subscriber that would leave them in the top ten for cost? Despitye it having a built in audience that is a bold request.

Face it, TWC sports nuts (I'm one of them)-- this isn't going to happen for us. If you want the NFLN, you need to go to DirectTV or Dish. For those of you that think one side will budge-- why do you think that? It's been 3 years now and neither side really needs the other. TWC doesn't really care what customers want in terms of programming (they've proven that over the years), and will accept the defector rate to satellite. The NFL doesn't need TWC subscribers, when just about every other major cable provider and both satellite carriers are already on board.

My friend is like you, sports all the time. all weekend and when ever he gets home from work, unless the wife convinces him to watch a movie, RARE! He has Satelite change from Cablevision. But even he doesn't see the big hoopla. He gets his fix of NFL on the days he is use to it. Sunday and Moday. Like all of us are. He tends to forget about the thursday games or isn't interested because there is better Basketball or Hockey games on. But even then since this is a HD site NFLHD is extra. Just like it would be on TWC so I don't see why the NFL makes TWC wanting to put it on a special tier such a big deal.

In the end, we all could take sides on this. I read many of your posts that say they are happy that TWC is taking a "stand"on this. If that's your opinion-- fine. But, don't be fooled about them doing this for you-- the customer. They are doing this for them-- to make gobs more profit (see above). And, I also read many posts that bash TWC and side with the NFL. I guess I lean slightly there because I see this network as a product. All companies that make something (i.e. a product) have the right to charge what the market bears and demand that their product is properly positioned. They have no interest in the NFLN being, in effect, a PPV option. Why should they when other so-called "sports niche" channels (Golf Channel, Speed Channel, Fox Soccer, etc.) have a basic cable position?

Agree we all have our sides but hating either side doesn't get the channel seen anytime soon. Unlike you I am leaning with TWC, because I feel there is more involved then putting it on a sport tier. Like you say there are other "sport Niche" channels on basic, which I feel you are right the NFLnet should belong, but they outpriced themselves from basic cable. That ids the big picture that needs to be brought to the table that these 2 companes aren't even at anymore. In the long run when big business goes against big business it always us the little guys that get hurt.

My opinion is that TWC believes they are the product-- and, not just the provider of products. Providers inherantly have a more customer focused attitude (like Comcast, DirectTV, and Dish). I have seen no indication that Time Warner will ever see themselves differently.

I won't comment on your opinnion because it is yours and to be honest I respect it. Now if only TWC and the NFL could discuss the situation like we have, then we wouldn't be missing those 8 games a year. Later Toad.

Now if only TWC and the NFL could discuss the situation like we have, then we wouldn't be missing those 8 games a year.

I hear ya, brother. Hey, I admit it-- I love football. I'd watch the NFL Network in the off-season. I guess I have to realize that most people (at least on this forum) see the NFLN as 8 games only. I see it as 24/7 football programming. Hell, there's certainly more content on NFLN then there is on most HD channels today (ex. Mojo, MHD which have about 2 hrs of programming between them).

I hear ya, brother. Hey, I admit it-- I love football. I'd watch the NFL Network in the off-season. I guess I have to realize that most people (at least on this forum) see the NFLN as 8 games only. I see it as 24/7 football programming. Hell, there's certainly more content on NFLN then there is on most HD channels today (ex. Mojo, MHD which have about 2 hrs of programming between them).

I love football just as much as the next man, Go Jets!! But I don't see the need for the off season use of that channel. The Draft is broadcast in real time on ESPN, so even if the NFLnet makes it and exclusive thing ESPN might still broadcast it like they broadcast selection sunday for the NCAA. CBS has exclusive rights but ESPN has a show shadowing the CBS coverage and makes the announcements seconds after the CBS heads do. That is where the NFLnet gets into trouble with their over pircing. Never mind the fact that all this debate hasn't even touch the NFLnet HD channel. That is a totallly different can of worms. Sure they have you and there are many like you. But you guys are still the minority. Which is exactly what TWC and other hold out companies are looking at. I think it is safe to take Mojo of your list they do show decent content 24/ 7. It might not be everyone's cup of tea. But it is full time HD shows. I have been caught watching a few of the concerts or a few of the sporting programs on occassion. MHD is different, How many music videos are truly shot in HD? But the differeance between these 2 channels as compared to the nfl. they didn't cost TWC 70 cents per subscriber.

All we TWC subscribers can do is write the NFL and TWC to urge them to get back into the boardroom and negotiate a deal. I understand it is a business first but big business needs to stop screwing us little guys.

I'm not normally a subscriber to the 'slippery slope' argument, but I think this whole deal right now is the just the opening moves toward a complete pay-per-view system of NFL games. The NFL is just very slowly looking to cut out the middleman, first use the cable and satellite co's to break it away from the networks, then start using the differences in cable and satellite pricing systems to start breaking away from them, until the NFL network is the only one with access to the NFL. Just my .02

College football on Sunday network TV. I like it!

I'm not normally a subscriber to the 'slippery slope' argument, but I think this whole deal right now is the just the opening moves toward a complete pay-per-view system of NFL games. The NFL is just very slowly looking to cut out the middleman, first use the cable and satellite co's to break it away from the networks, then start using the differences in cable and satellite pricing systems to start breaking away from them, until the NFL network is the only one with access to the NFL. Just my .02


Maybe, but then again I don't see the NFL going to a set-up where those die-hard viewers outside the area of their favorite team can simply PPV their favorite team's games and leave the rest, unless they dramatically change the current price model (like going to something $400-500/season for NFLST and then going something like $15-20/single game and/or say $150 for 1 team's entire season). They get these people to buy the whole thing right now.

Unless the NFL can put its own satellites in the air, they will always need some kind of middleman.

And as I've said before, the NFL would be giving up a LOT of free public exposure. I believe some sporting events actually have to pay the networks to get on TV. The broadcast networks and ESPN pay the NFL -- and pay a hefty price -- for their product, and the exposure creates millions of wannabes who buy NFL-licensed merchandise and grow brand loyalty.

Each week the NFL has 16 games to show. OK the byes and stuff but 16 is the number I am going to work with. Normally you will see 5 of them and the other 11 are somewhere! We don't get the games we would like to see, it depends on where you live and so on. If you truly want all the NFL you need Directv and that will solve your problem.

I can buy the Baseball package and I do. I can buy the Hockey package and I do. I cannot buy the NFL package because I can't have a dish where I live.

I would like to have the NFLN but neither side seems to give a rats *** about the customer so I guess we won't see it any time soon!

Now lets talk about the Big Ten Network :mad:

Prediction:

The 2011 SuperBowl will be on NFL Network

Prediction:

The 2011 SuperBowl will be on NFL Network

Despite the longing of the cable and satellite industries for the big bucks (and the dreamy scenario of getting the one mega event on American television that's not on pay-per-view), Commissioner Roger Goodell will most likely stick to keeping it on FREE (i.e, OTA) TV.

Prediction:

The 2011 SuperBowl will be on NFL Network


I predict that you will be wrong.

Prediction:

The 2011 SuperBowl will be on NFL Network

No way. The SB is so successful at generating big dollars because of its massive audience. If the NFL goes down the cable/PPV route (and I don't think there's a chance they will), they will end up like boxing; maybe more revenue, but a lot less of the public mindshare. The casual fan would be gone completely.

Obviously a tongue in cheek "prediction".

The 2011 Super Bowl, to be played Feb. 6 in the new Dallas Cowboys stadium, will be televised, per contract, by Fox.

Prediction:

The 2011 SuperBowl will be on NFL Network

Prediction:

The 2011 SuperBowl will be on NFL Network

No way

Ok 2012!

Ok 2012!
No way

Ok 2013!

I'd say by 2023.

Don't hold your breath
There is little chance the Big Ten Network will be available on basic cable services
By Mark Alesia mark.alesia@indystar.com
August 17, 2007

The new Big Ten Network appears unlikely to have wide distribution on cable television in Indiana and elsewhere when it launches Aug. 30. That means fans could miss games to which they've had easy access in the past. Here are answers to some questions about the situation:

What will change when the Big Ten Network launches?
The league sold its best football and men's basketball games to ABC, ESPN and CBS. Those games will remain on those channels, just as in the past.
But unlike previous years, when other games would be syndicated to local markets such as WTTV-4 in Indianapolis, the Big Ten is using them to start its channel. They will not be available anywhere else.

What will be on the channel?
A daily news program; live games (38 football, about 125 men's basketball and about 225 in other sports); coaches' shows, replays of historic games and non-sports programming produced by the schools.
In men's basketball, the Big Ten Network will carry at least six conference games involving IU and 11 with Purdue. The nonconference schedule hasn't been released.
The football television schedule is set as the season proceeds. IU and Purdue figure to make several appearances on the Big Ten Network.
As for games of national interest, ABC/ESPN has the first choice of Big Ten games each week.
For three of the 12 weeks, the Big Ten Network gets the second choice of games. For three other weeks, it gets the third pick.

Will I get this channel?
No major cable company has signed on, including the companies in and around Indianapolis -- Comcast, Insight and Bright House.
DirecTV, a satellite provider, was on board from the outset. But it's owned by the same company that owns Fox, the Big Ten's partner in the new channel.
Dish Network has not agreed to carry the channel.
AT&T U-verse, an emerging video provider using the Internet, will carry the channel. U-verse is available in parts of Indianapolis, Anderson, Bloomington, Muncie and Kokomo.

Why isn't everyone carrying the channel?
The Big Ten insists that it be placed on a basic package of channels, not a pay-extra sports tier. A basic tier gives the league more money from subscribers, more eyeballs for advertisers and easier access for fans.
The league accuses the cable companies of abusing their power, giving channels they own favorable placement. They say cable is being cheap with subscribers by offering lower-quality channels on the basic tier while attempting to relegate the Big Ten Network to a pay-extra sports tier.
The cable companies say the Big Ten Network is a vastly overpriced niche channel that shouldn't be forced on subscribers. The Big Ten Network is reportedly asking $1.10 per subscriber per month.
Cable companies say the football and men's basketball games being shown are mostly leftovers with limited appeal, and they're skeptical about interest in the other sports. They are really skeptical about the schools' non-sports programming.

What are the chances of last-minute deals being made before the Aug. 30 launch?
Terrible.

How long could the standoff last?
Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, is seen by some as the critical player. If Comcast strikes a deal, these people say, the others will soon follow.
But a long fight isn't out of the question.
Politically, the schools don't want their fans upset about missing games, but the schools aren't the ones risking money. They're being paid by Fox, which has a 49 percent stake in the Big Ten Network.
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has deep pockets and isn't known for being a timid businessman. His company's strategy could be to dig in and wait.
The Big Ten knows it has passionate fans who will become angry once they start missing games they expect to see. The league will try to direct that anger toward the cable companies. Big Ten schools have enormous e-mail lists of alumni, and the effort to mobilize them has already started.
The cable companies have fought these battles before. They think fans will be sympathetic to an argument about keeping cable rates down and standing up to a college league acting like a "greedy" pro league.
They don't believe the clamor from fans will be as huge as the league thinks, based on past television ratings for the types of games the channel will be showing.

Isn't this just a big money grab by the greedy people who run college sports, including the Big Ten?
Make no mistake, this is a for-profit operation, a bold -- some would say brash -- venture by the Big Ten schools into running a television business.
But there's another side. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said he had to find a way to make more money because school presidents told him they don't want athletic departments dipping further into schools' general funds.
Most athletic departments require subsidies from their schools to operate.
Should Big Ten universities even be in the television business?
Critics say the Big Ten Network is yet another sign of college sports becoming indistinguishable from pro sports.
Delany, however, said that having a channel allows Big Ten schools to stick closer to their values. There will be no alcohol advertising. There will be more control over starting times for games. Women's sports will receive prominent coverage. And schools will have programming to showcase things other than sports.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070817/SPORTS0601/708170469&GID=ECuvaDse&template=printart

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003626613

NFL Net, MyNetTV Near 'Total Access' Deal


John Consoli

AUGUST 15, 2007 -

The NFL Network is close to finalizing a deal with MyNetworkTV which would create an exclusive edition of NFL Total Access. The show would air on MNTV on Saturday nights at 9 beginning Sept. 8 and run each week in prime time into mid-February.

The deal would have the NFL Network sell the national advertising time, and the local MNTV affiliates would sell the local time on the show, which previews the weekends upcoming games and shows highlights of games from the week before. The NFL Network would pay MNTV an undisclosed fee for it to carry the show.

No agreement has yet been signed but media buyers told Mediaweek that NFL sales personnel have been quietly shopping the show in an attempt to sign up advertisers. In fact, General Motors and Wendy's have already been tenetatively signed on as sponsors of the show, Mediaweek has learned.

An insider at MNTV said emphatically that "the deal is not done," and the NFL Network officials agreed and would not comment officially. But insiders at the NFL Network were confident that the deal will be completed--confident enough that the network was already getting sponsorship commitments from advertisers and their media agencies.

The show, like its sister program on the NFL Network, which airs at 6 p.m. Mondays and 7 p.m. Tuesday-Saturday on that network, will also be hosted NFL Total Access host Rich Eisen. But it will not be a repeat of the show that airs Saturday nights on NFL Network. It will be a fresh, one-hour show specially created for the MNTV audience.

The show will offer highlights of all the games the week before and also do previews of the upcoming games that particular weekend.

The deal has positives for both the NFL Network and MNTV. The NFL Network still does not have cable carriage deals with Comcast and Time Warner, two of the nation's largest MSOs. NFL Network is hoping that airing NFL Total Access will not only reach a portion of the 28 million homes that have broadcast but not cable access, but also other fans in the Comcast and Time Warner markets.

For MNTV, the plus is that the show will draw more male viewers to the network. MNTV, which went on the air last September with only prime-time soap operas geared toward women on Monday-Saturday, has since revamped its programming lineup to include more male-oriented shows. It added International Fight League programming and also airs male-oriented theatricals on Thursday nights. This new hour of programming is expected to draw more male viewers to the network on Saturday nights.

I wonder if they'll consider putting the games on My Network TV (perhaps just locally) ? The ratings would certainly be huge considering all those people screwed by the Cable companies, otherwise, last year.

NFL Network Gets Blocked As Cable Takes Tough Stance
By Peter Grant and Adam Thompson

As football season approaches, the cable industry is gang-tackling a fledgling network created by the powerful National Football League.

Time Warner Cable Inc. and Cablevision Systems Corp. are refusing to carry the NFL Network, launched in 2003, on the league's terms. Charter Communications Inc., whose controlling shareholder owns the Seattle Seahawks, stopped carrying the network in late 2005 because of a contract dispute. Comcast Corp., the country's largest cable operator, yanked the NFL Network out of millions of homes after a bitter battle. The NFL tried to stop Comcast by suing, but lost. The case is now on appeal.

more-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118756679294202415.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

NFL Network’s Subscriber Roster Swells 10%
By Mike Reynolds -- Multichannel News, 8/20/2007

NFL Network still may be locked at the line of scrimmage with cable operators. But it has nonetheless expanded its distribution roster.

The second-year network has seen its subscriber base grow 10% since it presented its last regular-season pro football contest in December.

At that point, the National Football League-owned service was in some 40 million homes, a figure that has jumped to just under 44 million in the latest figures from Nielsen Media Research.

“There have been continued rollouts with affiliates,” said NFL Network communications director Seth Palansky. “We added 500,000 alone with Verizon [FiOS TV], [EchoStar Communications Corp.’s] Dish [Network] and DirecTV in the second quarter alone.”

The jump comes even as Comcast migrates the NFL Network to its sports tier. That package typically sells for around $5 per month and also includes NBA TV, Fox Soccer Channel and Tennis Channel, among others.

The migration of NFL Network from Comcast’s “D2” package, its second-most widely distributed digital package, kicked off in May, following a summary judgment by New York State Supreme Court Judge Bernard Fried permitting the move.

NFL Network has appealed the ruling and is due to make a response in the case, which has subsequently been sealed, owing to confidentiality agreements surrounding contractual information, according to Palansky.

Comcast didn’t comment on the status of the legal proceedings, but did issue the following statement: “We offer the NFL Network on our Sports Entertainment Pack, which is the best and fairest way to provide this programming to our customers.”

Meanwhile, notably absent from NFL Network’s distribution lineup: the nation’s No. 2 operator, Time Warner Cable, and the New York area’s Cablevision Systems. Both have refused to budge on NFL Network’s request for positioning on expanded basic.

The channel should get more traction from its inclusion in a “Football 24/7” advertising campaign for EchoStar Communications’ Dish Network. That promotes a $29.99 per month programming package which includes games on NFL Network.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6470020

Will cable dispute sideline Lion fans?
Daniel Victor/The Patriot-News August 19, 2007 04:00AM

With no apparent sense of irony, a commercial for the soon-to-be-launched Big Ten Network includes this boast:

"When asked why he doesn't give up coaching after 50-plus seasons, Joe Pa*terno replied: 'Because I don't want to miss anything.' And now, you don't have to either."

Customers of Comcast or the Dish Network who are also Penn State fans beg to differ. They're poised to miss a lot.

The Big Ten Network plans to debut Aug. 30 and wants to be on Comcast's ba*sic cable package. Comcast wants to put the channel in a sports tier that costs extra.

If Comcast and BTN don't strike an 11th-hour agree*ment, Comcast customers won't be able to see some Penn State games from home.

"I'm honestly not sure what I'll do," said Dana Weinzierl, a Comcast cus*tomer in Harrisburg and 2006 alumna. "I think I'd be very upset if I couldn't watch [Penn State games]."

Penn State fans are either watching intently or losing patience. The season opener against Florida International on Sept. 1 is on BTN.

The fans who will get the channel -- those with Di*recTV -- will get a bounty of Penn State content. At least three football games, includ*ing one conference game, will be on the channel.

All but three conference games in men's basketball are scheduled to be shown.

Between 65 and 75 Penn State games from all sports will be shown in the first year, said Elisabeth Conlisk, the network's vice president of communications.

Jim Janak of Palmyra didn't want to wait around for BTN and Comcast to end their standoff, so he switched last week to DirecTV.

Going to a bar for Penn State games isn't an option, not with a 1-year-old and 4-month-old at home. And tailgating with neighbors out*side the house and watching the game in high-definition is an important Saturday ritual.

"Now I can enjoy the kids as well as enjoy the football game," he said.

Dan Becker, a class of '79 alumnus, said he figures he and his teenage sons will be forced to listen to the radio.

"I'm going to feel like in*stead of going forward, I went backward to when I was 8 years old," he said.

There's plenty of blame to go around, Becker said. Penn State and BTN are too fo*cused on money, and Com*cast hasn't adjusted rates since dropping ESPN Classic and moving the NFL Net*work to the sports tier, he said.

"I don't think either side is trying to talk it out," he said.

BTN and Comcast said discussions are ongoing but pointed their fingers at one another.

Comcast spokesman Jeff Alexander said adding the channel to the basic cable lineup would result in a $13 yearly increase in customers' cable bills. The sports tier costs $1.99 a month for the first six months, then $4.99 a month afterward.

"Our stance is plain: Let consumers choose," he said.

BTN's Conlisk countered: "We believe that if you live in one of the eight states where the Big Ten schools are located, if you live in the state of Pennsylvania, you shouldn't have to pay extra to receive the network. It's as simple as that."

Caught in the middle is Penn State, which has sup*ported the network but stands to benefit if it reaches a wider audience.

Penn State President Gra*ham Spanier said he remains hopeful a deal will be reached.

"We are taking a long-term, 20-year approach to the benefits of the network, so I am very optimistic about its success and the window of visibility it provides to Penn State," he said in an e-mail.

Assistant Athletic Director Jeff Nelson said the universi*ty is looking forward to growing the fan base, the ex*posure it will give to "Olym*pic" sports and its 60 hours of nonathletic programming.

But it expected this kind of struggle, he said. The net*work executives have been through past network launches and warned the uni*versity this might happen.

"They were upfront with us from the beginning," Nel*son said. "They said with some of the larger cable companies, it's probably going to come right down to the wire. The fact that negotiations are still going on is not a surprise to us, nor is it a surprise to them."

Comcast's Alexander wouldn't offer a deadline for agreement to have the chan*nel in time for Penn State's season opener. He said chan*nel additions require behind-the-scenes engineering and customer notification, but wouldn't say how long that takes.

Erica Swierczynski, who has Comcast and graduated from Penn State in 2006, said she normally watches games at home or drives to Beaver Stadium, but she would be will*ing to go to bars as long as it's only once in a while.

She didn't realize until talking to a reporter that at least three of the season's football games wouldn't be on her cable package.

"Oh," she said. "That's a bummer."

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/08/328799-will_tussle_sack_lion_viewers.html

It's ashame for so many cable companies because I understand their positions and sometimes agree with them.

But, their arguing with so many channels was what made me switch the DirecTV.

Cox argued with everyone and anyone and it just became so tiring.

A lot of friends of mine had their last stand with Cox when they were arguing with CBS down here about their HD channel and thus almost NOT SHOWING the Saints/Bears Playoff game

I Agree. All the arguing betwenn the cable companies and the new networks get very old after a while. My cable provider doesn't carry the NFL Network for the same reasons. They want it on a sports tier. It's kinda funny how these new networks want to be on basic cable, but then turn right around and say they are better in digial quality on satellite. It's all about money .... cable wants it through the cost of sports tiers, the new networks want it through forced carriage to all subs through basic cable. It just gets really really old after a while. When cable companies and these new networks argue, it sounds so childish sometimes.

Just get together, buck up, and get a deal done. Like adults.

Will cable dispute sideline Lion fans?
Daniel Victor/The Patriot-News August 19, 2007 04:00AM


Bro, this thread is about the NFL Network, not the BTN. It is the same kind of dispute, though.

I hear ya, brother. Hey, I admit it-- I love football. I'd watch the NFL Network in the off-season. I guess I have to realize that most people (at least on this forum) see the NFLN as 8 games only. I see it as 24/7 football programming. Hell, there's certainly more content on NFLN then there is on most HD channels today (ex. Mojo, MHD which have about 2 hrs of programming between them).

I agree. The NFL Network has 8 regular season games, every preseason game that isn't nationally televised, and 4 games replayed per week for those that didn't get to see those games in your market.

This is a lot more that "8 games".

However, this conflict between the NFL and cable companies reminds me a lot of labor battles with any professional sport. You have super-rich people on both sides, and the ones getting screwed are the fans. :mad:

I predict that the NFL Network will be on TWC before the first regular season "NFL Network" exclusive game is played this year on Thanksgiving (11/22). Last year was a standoff that the league was will to play to the end because they thought TWC would lose many customers without the NFLN.

Perhaps I called this one! Now if I could just predict lottery numbers as well as business developments :D

Here's a snip from an article in todays San Antonio Express-News on TWC and the NFLN-

NFL, cable TV in rematch (http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA082107.01E.NFLNetwork.29aa11c.html)

Time Warner spokesman Jon Gary Herrera said the company remains in contact with NFL officials and wants to forge a compromise. While talks didn't produce a deal last season — when Time Warner customers had to miss eight regular-season games on the network, including a Cowboys game — Herrera said he was "optimistic" about a breakthrough this time around.

"We think something could be worked out before the first Cowboy game that's being carried on the NFL Network this season," he said.

Perhaps I called this one! Now if I could just predict lottery numbers as well as business developments :D


"We think something could be worked out before the first Cowboy game that's being carried on the NFL Network this season," he said. [/I]

I hope you're right. Actually, I'd like to have the NFLN before their games start in Nov. They replay games all week-- games I'd otherwise never see. And, I like their other programming, but I guess I'm in the minority there. Most people (certainly on this forum) think the channel is 8 games only.

At the risk of being the voice of doom ... this guy was quoted last year, saying just about the same thing. The fact is that these regional TWC lackies know less about their programming agreements-- than you and I do.

So ... I, for one, will believe this when I see it on my channel line-up.

When it comes to the Cable companies, something always smells. Read this and see if it reminds you of many previous posts in this thread:

Firm Hired By Comcast in Big Ten Network Fight Tied to Blog Postings

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6471668.html

* Just a link, since the story seemed a bit long to post here.

It's amazing how much the NFL Network story from last year matches the BTN story of this year.

----

Say, just how much of a cut did you get in your Cable Bill when they shifted the 'expensive' NFL Network over to a Sports Package ?


.

I didn't get a cut at all when they moved the NFLN to a " Sports Tier package( :rolleyes:AKA a way to charge you even MORE $)"
AAMOF, I had the NFLN free since it came aboard..... all of the sudden I don't have, and NEED a subscription to get it.

This is getting downright pathetic, if Comcast has it's way, I'll be paying to look out the window of my house..

Scumbags....

Time Warner Cable throws flag on Big Ten, NFL
By DICK FARRELL, Editor

This time, I’m on Time Warner Cable’s side. Well, I never thought that I’d actually write or say that because interruption of the cable company’s signal – whether it be Internet, TV or (now) telephone – into our homes is annoying as all get-out.

Now we find out that Time Warner Cable likely won’t be carrying the upcoming Ohio State-Youngstown State nor the Ohio State-Akron games, which are being offered on the brand-spanking new Big Ten Network.

So, one’s immediate reaction would be to launch some more anger at the cable company.

Calm down for a minute. Take a deep breath. Relax. Let me explain a situation that has proven difficult for Time Warner Cable to adequately explain to its subscribers.

You see Time Warner Cable and Big Ten Network haven’t been able to reach a deal because Big Ten Network basically is as greedy as an NFL holdout.

You may have noticed that in the past couple of years, sports franchises and leagues are forming their own TV networks and/or channels.

SportsTime Ohio, launched by the Cleveland Indians baseball club, is a good example. It’s the best of both worlds for the teams and leagues because not only do they rake in advertising dollars for their programming, but they also take home a fair share of your money, too, even though you don’t know or realize that you’re directly subsidizing it.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the Big Ten Network, wants $1.10 per subscriber per month in the territory served by the Big Ten schools. That would include our area.

The network also wants placement on the expanded basic tier of channels rather than a separate-buy sports tier that only rabid sports fans might want to purchase.

So, Time Warner – aware that customers are tired of rising rates – is balking at pulling the trigger on such a deal with the Big Ten Network along with one for the NFL Network, which wants pretty much the same deal.

In a story on the subject last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that 20 percent of an average New York City customer’s cable bill pays for sports programming whether that subscriber watches sports or not.

Indeed, your widowed grandmother, who quite possibly is interested only in watching only traditional over-the-air channels and “Murder She Wrote” reruns, is underwriting ESPN to the tune of some $3 a month.

Such strong-armed tactics are now filtering down to the high school level. Big Time Sports, which is a small local production company more or less dedicated to bringing local high school football and basketball action to viewers, canceled plans to televise this past Thursday’s Dover-Canton South high school football game.

The problem? The Northeastern Buckeye Conference, to which Canton South belongs, reportedly wanted $500 from Big Time for the broadcast rights. For a company like Big Time, $500 could be the difference between profit and loss. And if Big Time had agreed to the price, would other high school leagues take notice? You bet.

Meanwhile, rest assured that other college conferences are paying attention to the Big Ten Network’s fight with the cable companies. If the Big Ten is successful, the Pac-10 and other conferences will have their own TV networks quicker than the Buckeyes’ second team will be in the game against Youngstown.

I’m not sure how all this will play out. But I do know that Time Warner already has lost at least a few subscribers to satellite TV providers, who have struck deals with the Big Ten and NFL.

Personally, I can do without Ohio State’s games with Youngstown State and Akron. But I know there are fans whose lives are enriched by Ohio State football on autumn Saturday afternoons and who will dearly miss watching those minor matchups on free TV.

Thanks, Big Ten. You’re such a sport.

Dick Farrell is editor of The Times-Reporter. You can e-mail him at editor@timesreporter.com.
http://www.timesreporter.com/index.php?ID=71886

I didn't get a cut at all when they moved the NFLN to a " Sports Tier package( :rolleyes:AKA a way to charge you even MORE $)"
AAMOF, I had the NFLN free since it came aboard..... all of the sudden I don't have, and NEED a subscription to get it.

This is getting downright pathetic, if Comcast has it's way, I'll be paying to look out the window of my house..

Scumbags....Of course your bill isn't getting cut. They can shift the NFL network, but that isn't going to stop the dozens of other, more broad-based channels from demanding more money. It's also not going to stop maintenance and other operating costs from going up, either.

The only difference is that Comcast can actually do something about the NFL, the Big Ten, and every other league and organization which thinks they deserve their own network, and draw their line in the sand.

(And, no, I don't work for the cable company.)

Ahhhh, I love DirecTV. NFL Network and BTN - no fuss. :)

Any of you want me to come back to the thread to post updates from any of the games you can't watch?

That overly compressed signal must not show up bad on a tiny display.

The only difference is that Comcast can actually do something about the NFL, the Big Ten, and every other league and organization which thinks they deserve their own network, and draw their line in the sand.

(And, no, I don't work for the cable company.)

And they will continue losing more customers the more they draw their line in the sand.

That overly compressed signal must not show up bad on a tiny display.

Meh, believe it or not, I'd take my "tiny" display in a normal living room that
holds lots of friends for the game before a small dedicated darkroom for a
projector - great for movies, but not general viewing IMHO.

And the picture looks just fine - nice and sharp since I went from CRT HD to
LCD now... the technology alone improved the picture quality and sharpness
a ton. Could it be better, sure - but the fact that the PQ impresses me even
after having HD for over 4 years says something. And in about 3 weeks or so
it'll only get better. Plus, how important can PQ really be when you don't get
the channel to begin with? :)

Honestly, I'm just joking around here... trying to lighten up a thread that
needs it. The cable companies just need to suck it up and get it over with
since that's what will happen in the long run anyway - you'd have to have
blinders on not to see that. That's why I don't have and wouldn't go back to
TWC... took them FOREVER to sign carriage agreements for ESPNHD and ESPN
2HD... while I watched them on satellite for a couple years.

And they will continue losing more customers the more they draw their line in the sand.They'll lose some customers, sure. The question is, will they lose enough to justify caving in on such a precedent-setting issue?

There's no doubt Mediacom was worried about just that when they battled with Sinclair Broadcast Group over retransmission payment demands, which is why they weathered the storm for about a month, keeping many of their systems without one of the major broadcast networks.

Ultimately Mediacom decided there was broad-based value in those networks and stations, even though they were also available off air (and, at least in Iowa, despite their lagging in local news). But in doing so, they opened the door for all other broadcasters to make similar demands when their contracts come up for renewal.

And yet Mediacom is beginning its second season without NFL Network. Not a peep. Or if there is one, it's nowhere near as loud as the uproar over losing our CBS station.

The Big Ten Network may be another matter since much of Mediacom's Iowa territory is black-and-gold-bleeding Iowa Hawkeye fans, and they will lose many games which weren't good enough for ABC and ESPN, but used to be syndicated to stations anyway.

But there's also another good-size chunk of the state that's firmly in Cyclone Country, as in Iowa State -- a Big XII team -- and many of those fans have no use for either the Hawks, the Big Ten, or a Big Ten Network. And a lot of Hawkeye fans would have no use for a Big XII Network, if one existed. It's been said that BTN's troubles getting carriage are giving the Big XII and other conferences pause. But if that floodgate opens, you're looking at major bucks, especially in states like Iowa which have major schools in more than one conference.

Has an agreement between TWC and the NFL been reached with no public announcement?!? I am watching the NFLN in HD right now on channel 108 in San Antonio!

False alarm, the car dealership where I am watching has GVTC and not TWC. They are using the same 8300HD DVR and a non-branded remote. Guess TWC customers are still doing without...

Don't ever do that again!

' Light goes on in Head ' moment:

Happened to notice that in addition to the football games yesterday, they had Soccer on one of the BTN channels on DirecTv.

The NFL Network carries everything Football 24/7 year around.

The BTN will carry football as a tiny percentage of it's programming for the year.

That means that America's Sport (pastime I say) is on the NFL Network and that nearly uncountable hours of pure dreck (*Sports that can't make a dime or draw an audience) are on the BTN.

I'm not going to compare the the NFL Network vs. the BTN anymore.

They'll lose some customers, sure.

They lost me today. Good riddance, Time Warner and your measly few HD channels.

Continuing clash between Time Warner, NFL may leave Cowboys fans in dark

Web Posted: 09/02/2007 12:31 AM CDT
Travis E. Poling
Express-News Business Writer

There's no doubt Daniel Neuman loves pro football.

Neuman went to a New Braunfels sports bar on a recent Saturday night to watch a preseason game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Houston Texans, even though he's a Green Bay Packers fan.

And an avid one at that. He recently shelled out about $250 for four months of DirecTV satellite service at his home so he won't miss the Nov. 29 game between the Cowboys and the Packers.

It's one of the NFL games that won't be seen on broadcast television this season. As of now, Time Warner Cable, which reaches the most households in the San Antonio area, won't show it either, since it doesn't carry the NFL Network, and talks between the two are stalemated.

Money is, of course, central to the dispute.

"Nobody should pay for it to begin with, but I understand everybody's got to make a buck," Neuman said. "But 250 bucks, that kind of cramps me a little bit."

Neuman's lament comes as the battle between the NFL Network and Time Warner Cable enters its second season. The NFL Network insists it should be part of the regular cable lineup, at no extra charge to subscribers; Time Warner wants to place it on a sports tier where it can pass the cost directly to those fans who want it most.

Cable companies say they are holding the line so fans of programming such as the Oxygen network and HGTV won't have to shell out a few more dollars a month for the sake of their sports-nut neighbors. Sports networks, which are multiplying as leagues pursue more sources of revenue, say the issue boils down to who controls programming.

Stuck in the middle, viewers are left to wonder: Who will foot the bill and how high will the price go?

"As a consumer, you're sitting on the sidelines and don't know who to root for," said Larry Darby, an economist and senior fellow of the American Consumer Institute.

Competition for customers — who often buy packaged services known as bundles — also is at stake. Time Warner's San Antonio customer base is the ninth largest in the nation with 317,557 subscribers, according to March data from Nielsen Media Research. Austin is No. 22 with 236,504 Time Warner customers.

But Time Warner fears adding even a dollar to monthly bills to cover the cost of the NFL Network might cause customers to bolt to competitors. And those rivals — AT&T's U-Verse, DirecTV, Dish Network, Grande Communications and GVTC Communications — already tout that they have the NFL Network, which will offer eight games this season, including two Cowboys games.

Fans' passions and their identity with teams have turned specialty sports offerings — from the NFL to the Big Ten — into powerful bargaining chips for these new sports networks. They want the most people possible to see their exclusive programming so they can make their brand more valuable and sell more advertising.

Their power over cable providers is becoming evident, even as the cable companies put up a brave front.

With the higher cost of buying programming, cable companies have passed along the costs to customers as much as they think the market will bear. The average price of expanded basic cable has increased 17 percent in the last five years to an estimated $42.76 a month this year, according to Kagan Research. Since 1997, those rates have risen 61 percent.

Overall revenue from cable customers, however, has increased by 145 percent in that same 10 years to $74.7 billion, Kagan Research reports. Advertising revenue has tripled to more than $26 billion in a decade, and ads sold around regional sports programming also have tripled to an estimated $789 million in 2007, Kagan Research found.

Observers say it's no wonder sports leagues want a piece of that expanding pie.

"You have to be where people can consume you," said Mike Bass, senior vice president of marketing communications for the NBA.

Frank Chavez, a hairstylist in North-Central San Antonio, said he signed up for regular cable primarily to be able to see Spurs games on ESPN, TNT and Fox Sports Southwest. Still, he's sensitive to price.

"I like to watch the Spurs, but if I had to pay extra for it I wouldn't do it," Chavez said.

The NBA was the first league to launch a network with NBA TV in 1999 but has remained in the sports tier of carriers. Nine Spurs games aired live on NBA TV last season, picking up the Spurs' own local broadcast so Spurs fans didn't miss a game.

However, if Dallas Mavericks fans in San Antonio wanted to watch NBA TV exclusive games during the season, it would take a premium subscription to get the network and NBA League Pass programming, Bass said.

That same issue is behind the NFL Network battles in the Texas market.

Dallas denizens still can see the Cowboys-Green Bay matchup and the Dec. 22 game of their home team against the Carolina Panthers without spending a dime. The same is true for Houstonians with the Houston Texans vs. the Denver Broncos on Dec. 13.

But San Antonio is Cowboys country. "America's team" also has strongholds of support from El Paso to Brownsville. Those fans could miss the two games unless they pony up some extra cash or switch from their cable company.

The dialogue with the NFL Network is "ongoing," said Time Warner spokesman Jon Gary Herrera. The company doesn't want to lose customers or the opportunity to sell them other services, Herrera said, but after a two-year stalemate, the NFL and cable giant are no closer to a resolution.

Two weeks ago, NFL spokesman Seth Palansky told the San Antonio Express-News that Time Warner "took the olive branch we offered them, broke it and threw it away."

Herrera scoffs at that version of the negotiations. "They offered an olive branch, but there were no olives on it," he said. "We're in a cycle where consumers want more programming," but that more items on the buffet of networks must be balanced with the cost.

The NFL Network is asking for about 61 cents a month for each subscriber and offering advertising time for Time Warner to sell to offset the costs without raising rates, Palansky said Friday. He said there are no negotiations with Time Warner now, despite the cable company's claims.

Time Warner also said it's in negotiations with the new Big Ten Network, but the problem is the same as with the NFL Network: Big Ten wants to be in the main digital tier, particularly in markets where the schools are.

Some consumer advocates say the consumer is trapped between the network and programming provider interests. That could be solved with a la carte offerings that let consumers pay only for what they want, said Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America.

"Right now they pay for all of them and watch almost none of them," Cooper said of the numerous channels.

Even though the number of offerings keeps growing, American Consumer Institute's Darby said a la carte won't work because doing so would limit choice rather than improve it. "The consumer should be able to get as much choice as they can for the best price."

Grande Communications, which operates in parts of San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, Corpus Christi and its hometown of San Marcos, believes satisfying that appetite is a key to success.

"We're real focused on customers, and we've let them vote online and seen what's really important to them," Grande Chief Services Officer Chad Jones said of the NFL Network. "NFL, that's the crown jewel, the big Kahuna."

Last year, Grande and the NFL Network couldn't reach an agreement, but the terms were different this year, and Grande is playing on the affiliation to garner a bigger percentage of its 300,000 potential customers.

"The happier people are with you, the more they buy from you," Jones said. That means recouping the cost of the NFL Network by selling phone and Internet service to their cable customers. "Our phones are lit up," he said of potential customers calling after the announcement Monday of the new offering.

Bruce Forey of GVTC Communications said the value of having the NFL Network in its main tier at no extra charge is to "help gain and retain customers."

And San Antonio-based AT&T's U-Verse, a new entry in the competition with cable, was quick to grab the NFL and Big Ten networks.

"We thought it would help us in our market entry," said Chris Lauricella, AT&T vice president of programming.

Lauricella expects more sports networks to crop up as sports franchises, leagues and conferences try to get more value out of their product.

The Big 12 — a conference that includes the University of Texas, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University and Baylor University — opted to renew its contracts with Disney's ESPN and Fox Sports Networks.

But the Southeastern Conference is reportedly exploring starting its own network, the National Hockey League is expected to look for U.S. carriers instead of just showing in Canada, and Major League Baseball could have some league network presence of its own in the coming years, especially with an ownership stake from cable companies.

"It's unbelievable," said the NBA's Bass of the growing number of sports networks, "but the appetite is still there for more."

Comments

Time Warner Cable needs to lower the prices because they're being increased every year, and it makes me wonder about keeping their services. I've no need for cable, but I've it to please my three children. A higher allowance will make them forget about cable, so I may increase their allowances, and do away with cable in January. I would gladly accept an increased of about $35.00 dollars a month in my allowance, so I know they will take me up on the offer.

Posted by: Willie at August 23, 2007 08:36 AM

I'm a long time TW customer. I've seen their pricies steady increase over the past couple of years. Why?? Likely because they've been adding channels I could care less about. Now, when the MOST POPULAR sport in the United States wants them to air their network free to customers devoid of a tier package, TW is feeding us this nonsense. I say I'm currently looking at other options.

Its the NFL, not some start-up sports venture...the fan base is huge! It just shows TW doesn't truly care about its customers...the added cost excuse is a smokescreen because their pride and greed won't allow them take NFL fans best interest at heart. The NFL realizes TW's ultimate goal...stick it to/take advantage of their fans. TW could get rid of several fringe channels/programs that only have a narrow fan base....but noooo....$$$$ signs say Sports-Tier. Well enough is enough...Direct TV seems the way to go. Its not just about missing a few Cowboy games...its the principle of not honestly taking care of your customers. Wake-up NFL fans...TW is setting us up!

Posted by: Nupe at August 21, 2007 10:42 PM

HIGHLIGHTS!? WHO WANTS TO WATCH HIGHLIGHTS?!

Posted by: Jackie at August 21, 2007 04:16 PM

Now, it doesn't matter what anyone else says, all I know is that NFL network has a whole lot more than you think. I get to watch previews, live press confrences, inside training camp and more, I can go on. I actually saved more by going w/ Direct TV and the DVR is 110% more advanced than TW. I am spending my money well. C'mon guys if yall don't watch football like I do, then you're not an NFL fan, and I'm a woman! I probably know more football than any other guy in here.

Posted by: Jackie at August 21, 2007 04:13 PM

I HAVE BEEN WITH TW A LONG TIME BUT I WILL HAQVE TO SWITCH THIS YEAR I CANT STAND MISSING COWBOY GAMES I CALLED TW WITH A PETITION WITH 450 NAMES ON IT BUT THEY JUST SAID THEY COULD REPLACE THE BUSINESS LOST

Posted by: GENE THOMAS at August 21, 2007 03:37 PM

If the NFL is in charge of its teams/players than they have the option to do as they please. The fans can scream and holler but in the end they are what makes up the NFL. Get used to it.

Posted by: MJ at August 21, 2007 03:31 PM

Time Warner should stick to its guns!! We are avid football fans but do not feel that everyone should have to pay more so a few can watch 24 hours of football. Put the NFL on a sports tier and those who can't do without it can pay the tarrif. We are very satisfied with TW.

Posted by: Bill at August 21, 2007 03:06 PM

Ever heard of the radio, I also missed the Cowboys game against the falcons, Or i should say i didnt see it, but i heard every word by simply turning on my radio.. I happen to be more of a Houston Texan fan and living in the San Antonio Market i am forced to listen to more games because the Dallas Cowboys dominate this area. So all I can say is HAHAHAHAHA to all the Cowboys fans who got a taste of what its like to not be able to watch their favorite team.BLAME the NFL for using their monopoly techniques to negotiate.. by the way NFL network wont work in the heavy thunderstorms,So anyone with NFL network better check your forecast on Nov. 29th and DEC.22nd. At least with TWC i get to watch the highlights on ESPN HD.....

Posted by: MR. MATT at August 21, 2007 02:10 PM

I was a Time Warner customer for many years, and when I found out that some Football games were not going to be aired, I was furious. I'm a big sports fanatic fan, I love to watch football all day and all night on Sundays. it was December of last year, when Cowboys were going to play the Falcons, and it wasn't going to be shown on TW, I immidietly cancelled my service with TW and got Direct TV just in time. Now, I'll never go back to TW. I actually get to see a whole lot more on the NFL network, I love it! Jerry Jones is a smart man, he knows San Antonio is a big part of the Dallas Cowboys. he wants everyone to see the Cowboys on tv, but if it ddoesn't happen, then TW is probably losing a lot of customers. see ya TW!

Posted by: Jackie at August 21, 2007 01:28 PM

I am forced to have TWC (no southern exposure), and I want the NFL network. Why can't they come to an agreement and let the customer decide if they want to pay for it or not.

I want it, I'll pay for it. Come to an agreement already - otherwise I'm moving and will GET a southern exposure and a SAT dish.

Posted by: Barb at August 21, 2007 01:23 PM

I think the NFL should allow a sport tier, like HBO and let me decide if I want it. I see enough football on the regular channels, however I will miss the Cowboy games. NFL greed, greed, greed!!!!

Posted by: Chuck Peifer at August 21, 2007 01:03 PM

I absolutely agree with Terry and Don above. I'm very surprised at those who are siding with Time-Warner. Don't get me wrong -- I shed no tears for the NFL. They obviously want to make all the money the can. But it seems to me that of the two, the NFL wants people to have access to their product for no more cost.
The reasoning is simple. Just like Don said. Every time I do a price comparison every few months, Time-Warner's rates are just flat out higher than any of the satellite companies. If TW really cares for holding their customer's rates down then don't charge 20-30% more per month for the exact same programming (actually less since they don't carry the NFL and some other channels).

Posted by: Todd at August 21, 2007 12:38 PM

Both companies should sit down and come up with a compromise to satify the need of their customers. Everyone (businesses) seem to forget their purpose in life......customer satisfaction and providing service to their customers. The only reason these two companies exist is because of us, their customers!!!! Please come to your senses.

Posted by: Tito at August 21, 2007 12:15 PM

Time Warner should give their clients what they want. The NFL Network should be shown without a fee. Dishtv does it ans so does Direct tv. Time Warner customers should change services.

Posted by: JJ at August 21, 2007 10:49 AM

I have Directv and get mostly what games I want to watch but when they dont carry the Cowboys games I quit complaining and go fishing then listen on the radio to the game and catch fish. It makes it a double day of a game and fishing. All the hoopla about having a bbq with alot of friends over has ended with greed from the NFL as well as the TV suppliers. If we are paying for TV to watch why are we still getting commercials? I dont want commercials, just a good game. If they dont come around pretty soon I will sell my TV and cancel my TV period. That would give me alot of free time to do other things such as being with family. Look at all the greed the oil companies are having right now because we will not stand up to them or really cant because we all need fuel for our daily lives such as heating when cold and AC when it is hot along with driving our vehicles. We are kinda stuck between the rock and a hard place. Screwed either way. See what greed has done.

Posted by: Tom at August 21, 2007 10:47 AM

I feel Time Warner is just looking at what is best for the customers. Most cable companies would not care if adding a network would add to the cost of your monthly billing, but it seems that Time Warner is really trying to keep our cost down and that say's alot for them as a whole. It is about time that a cable provider stepped up and cared about cost to the client. But then again what else do we expect from Time Warner, they are not hiding rebates in the fine print as do other providers....I won't mention who they are.(AT&T)Besides my time and life revolves around my family and not football, if the network is carrying a game, then listen to it on the radio and spend the time doing something with the family instead. Well, keep caring about us Time Warner and we will keep using you.

Posted by: Brandon at August 21, 2007 10:44 AM

I will not be forced by the NFL to pay more for my cable just so they can make more profits! I am staying w/ cable, and will contact the NFL and tell them I'm just going to start watching Soccer, and try to convince more people to do the same.

Posted by: mario at August 21, 2007 10:39 AM

Last year I felt like the NFL was not being reasonable, this year I feel like TWC is dragging their feet because they are trying to figure out a way to put the NFLN on a sports tier and charge customers $8.95 a month for something the NFL only wants $2.00 per month. Both entities are trying to stick it to the customer at the end of the day.

Posted by: Billy at August 21, 2007 09:59 AM

Kudos to Time Warner and other cable carriers for standing their ground and not being pushed around by the 800 lb. gorilla better known as the NFL. I am a happy Time Warner customer, and a die-hard Dallas Cowboys fan, who would be happy to pay for the additional sports package if it were available. I don't think it is fair to make everyone pay, when not everyone watches the games. Obviously, Time Warner and other cable carriers are thinking about ALL consumers, and not just those who watch the games, in their attempt to fight back the NFL's continued bullying.

Let's also keep in mind that this isn't Time Warner vs. the NFL, it's many of the cable carriers, all over the nation. It is unfair to single Time Warner out. There are other companies with a local presence also fighting this battle.

What is wrong with adding the NFL Network to a sports tier? Nothing. The NFL and their greedy owners want to squeeze as much as they can out of the consumer to make up for inflated and unbelievably ridiculous salaries they continue to pay professional athletes. If that means I have to miss the game because the cable carriers stood their ground, then so be it. Fortunately, I can watch highlights on ESPN.

The cable carriers are offering a solution to this problem by offering to carry the NFL Network on their sports tier, which any sports fan would be happy to pay. The NFL wants everyone to pay, regardless of whether they are sports fan or not. You tell me who's more to blame? Keep up the good fight, cable.

Posted by: Aaron at August 21, 2007 09:56 AM

I live out of range of cable so I sadly had to switch to Satellite(DirecTV)when I moved to Bulverde. However, I can now invite my buds to my house to watch my 57" HDTV(although,unfortunately,the NFL chnl. is not HD)and they have to bring the pizza & drinks.I'm hopeful that with DirecTV's addition of 100+ HD channels, the NFL Chnl. will be included.

Posted by: Gary Macdecy at August 21, 2007 09:47 AM

NFL Network costs the cable companies two cents a day. It's not expensive at all. Time Warner just wants to get football fans to pay extra for it so they can profit even more than they already do off its customers. Ask yourselves how can Dish Network, DirecTV, AT&T U-Verse, GVTC and Grande all offer NFL Network and yet they are much more affordable than Time Warner already. This is a clearly the greedy cable company who happily gives you channels you don't want, but then tries to get you to pay extra to get the ones you do. Join your neighbors, and switch to a TV provider who gives you what you want without raking you over the coals.

Posted by: Fred at August 21, 2007 09:42 AM

Dick Parsons (the head of Time Warner) is a billionaire, and there are many millionaires at Time Warner. How about cutting their salaries (including the $1.00 per subscriber the current San Antonio president gets), add the channel and fund it with senior executive salary cuts? Parsons and the rest of the thugs running Time Warner are classic examples as to what is wrong with corporate America. We get junk channels, but not what we want. Pathetic.

Posted by: Greg at August 21, 2007 08:43 AM

I think it is the battle of who can screw you more. The NFL is extremely greedy and will never be satisfied on how much money they can make. Time Warner has the same ethics on greed. I say what they need to do is keep the consumer's needs and wants in mind, not thier ridiculous bank accounts. For now the choice is up to the consumer on who he wants to get screwed by, the NFL or Time Warner. If these were kids, they'd both end up in the corner of the room. Whatever happened to the customer's first?!!!

Posted by: Mario at August 21, 2007 08:35 AM

NFL networks needs to be put on the Time Warner sports tier just like NBA TV and ESPNNews. If you have it then it wouldnt cost you extra if you subscribe to it it would cost you $7 a month to watch our beloved COWBOYS. Put it on the sports package and give the people the OPTION to choose it.

Posted by: MAIN EVENT at August 21, 2007 08:29 AM

I don't care about football, so do I care, if the fans don't get to watch their favorite teams. I care about having the price of cable go up for me because I can do without Football. So Big Deal, they are going to miss three football games. I don't think the world will come to an end because of three games not being shown. Wake up, and do something more important in life instead of being glued to the television set watching some dumb jockies sweating up a storm. Take your children for a long sweaty walk, and lose the fat pot belly at the same time. Last year I was about to go for DISH, but decided to give cable one more chance, but also remember I don't care about FOOTBALL.

Posted by: WHAT at August 21, 2007 08:00 AM

I pay a lot of money per month for cable TV and I strongly believe that Time Warner should add the NFL network to the cable package. If this doesn't happen this year then I will be looking for a dish network for all my TV viewing.

Posted by: Max at August 21, 2007 07:55 AM

I think that overall there is too much football being shown and not enough other sports, such as ice hockey, being made available. If a person wants to see wall-to-wall football, then they should get the football sports package. I don't want to continue to pay more for what I don't want to see.

Ed

Posted by: Ed at August 21, 2007 07:53 AM

The short version of comment I made on this same subject last year.....Time Warner and the NFL can go jump in the lake....Gone hunting!

Posted by: David White at August 21, 2007 07:40 AM

Here you have two money hungry titans using your love of a child's game (and football is a child's game) to try and drive a wedge between you and your wallet.

Dish and DirecTV both carry the NFL network and it's doesn't cost a penny more, that's true, but TW wants a power play. They want to be able to keep their regular tier of bad channels, come on folks when was the last time any of you tuned into channels 2,4,6,8,9,15,17,19,20,21, or 22?

TW can place the NFL network right there on anyone of those channels and no one would notice...put it on 22 and place the programming on 22 on one of those home shopping channels. It's where those constant appeals for money belong anyway.

Posted by: JohnC at August 21, 2007 07:29 AM

The NFL and all major sports are too greedy. I no longer care if Time Warner carries it or not. Yawn.

Posted by: Elmer at August 21, 2007 07:19 AM

I am going to keep a close watch on the proceedings, I am going to watch the Cowboys come hell or high water,even if I have to get a dish, before it is all over we will all have to pay more if we want to watch the Cowboys, if not this year, next year. I am presently with Grandecom.net

Posted by: bates1950@grandecom.net at August 21, 2007 07:05 AM

I used to believe in the "sports heros" of yesterday, but with the players like Vick and others like him, well dump the games I wont watch them and I don't want my family to watch them either. The heros are gone, let the sports go with it, give me the Discovery Chanel!

Posted by: Steve at August 21, 2007 07:04 AM

Two words: Dish Network. If you want the NFL Network move to Dish which is more economical, has more channels in HD and in my opinion has a stronger signal than Time Warner. Also, Time Warner has the worst customer service I've ever dealt with!

Posted by: A.L. at August 21, 2007 06:36 AM

I switched from cable to a satellite dish - long ago. There is no charge for the NFL network.
Sounds like the cable companies would be willing to carry the NFL channel - if they could charge extra money to their subscribers.
That my cable company was always finding things to charge "extra" for, is the reason I made the change initially, and now have a satellite dish.

Posted by: Miemaw at August 21, 2007 06:32 AM

I supported Time-Warner's refusal to carry the money grubbing NFL last year. This year, I do not. If the two primary satellite tv companies can carry the NFL Channel without raising prices, then why can't Time-Warner. I am a time-warner customer here, but I also have a home in Oklahoma where I use the Dish Network. These two mega-money maniacs need to get together and provide coverage of at least the Texas Teams. I'm not crazy about Dish, but don't think for a moment I won't switch if this doesn't get resolved--and without raising my T-W bill which is already too high.

Posted by: Terry at August 21, 2007 01:20 AM

I dropped Time Warner last December because they could not provide me with the viewing slection that I wanted, specifically Dallas Cowboys football. Since then I have saved a lot of money by not subscribing to any cable or satellite network. I will still miss the games late in the year on the NFL Network, but with the money I'm saving, I will attend those games in person.

Posted by: Troy Elms at August 21, 2007 12:35 AM

The NFL need to stop being so damn greedy. If the owners wish to continue those ridiculous salaries; then they need to take less in profits for themselves and quit trying to screw the public. Enough is Enough! Cancel the damn season as far as cable T.V. is concern and let those idiots who what to pay premium pricing do so. Let see how low the NFL can go without the cable market and continue those rich contract for their players.

I say the cable people need to stick to their guns. If the NFL think it can do without cable, then lets see which player has his salary check bounce after a while.

Thanks!
jaime

Posted by: jaimemc at August 20, 2007 11:59 PM

The answer is to do like I did . I switched from Time Warner to dish network--because dish network has the NFL network and carries the games that I want to see---and the upshot is that dishnetwork is also cheaper. I was paying about $92 a month for Time Warner and I now pay about $65 per month for the dish network. The picture quality is as good or better then cable. The only problem I have had with the dish network is that a couple of times in a thunderstorm --it goes out. But --overall----I am very satisfied with dish network.

Posted by: Don at August 20, 2007 11:48 PM

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA090207.1A.CableSportsFaceoff.3ac6b1b.html

That's a good story that pretty much sums up everything that this thread is about !

Two weeks ago, NFL spokesman Seth Palansky told the San Antonio Express-News that Time Warner "took the olive branch we offered them, broke it and threw it away."

Herrera scoffs at that version of the negotiations. "They offered an olive branch, but there were no olives on it," he said. "We're in a cycle where consumers want more programming," but that more items on the buffet of networks must be balanced with the cost.

The NFL Network is asking for about 61 cents a month for each subscriber and offering advertising time for Time Warner to sell to offset the costs without raising rates, Palansky said Friday. He said there are no negotiations with Time Warner now, despite the cable company's claims.


This says it all. $.61? TWC is probably paying more for LifeTime Women. Get it now, people? It's not about the NFLN being "too expensive for our customers", as TWC claims. It's all about positioning. TWC wants to put it into a sports tier and immediately raise the price of that service from $2.95/mo to about $7.95/mo-- because they know fans would pay it just to get the NFLN. That means they would reap about $4.39/mo ($5 from jacking up the cost of the sports tier MINUS $.61 for their cost to provide the NFLN) PER CUSTOMER. That's the NFL's beef-- they don't want their fans robbed by TWC, using their product as a smokescreen.

This is it for me. I'm gone.

This says it all. $.61? TWC is probably paying more for LifeTime Women. Get it now, people? It's not about the NFLN being "too expensive for our customers", as TWC claims. It's all about positioning. TWC wants to put it into a sports tier and immediately raise the price of that service from $2.95/mo to about $7.95/mo-- because they know fans would pay it just to get the NFLN. That means they would reap about $4.39/mo ($5 from jacking up the cost of the sports tier MINUS $.61 for their cost to provide the NFLN) PER CUSTOMER. That's the NFL's beef-- they don't want their fans robbed by TWC, using their product as a smokescreen.

This is it for me. I'm gone.Here's how they probably figured it: Lifetime has more entertainment year-round for more people than the NFL Network. NFLN has 8 NFL games that count, a couple of college bowls, and a whole lot of filler even during the season, let alone the off-season.

That assumes the two networks are priced equally, which is unfortunately "confidential" and usually comes from third-hand research firms ... but I doubt that Lifetime wants what the NFL charges.

Here's how they probably figured it: Lifetime has more entertainment year-round for more people than the NFL Network.

You are kidding, right?

You are kidding, right?

Sounds reasonable to me me unless you are taking a myopic view of things.

Jim Dolan, CEO of Cablevision, said on a radio show earlier this week that Cablevision will not carry NFL Network until they can get Sunday Ticket. He said the channel as it now stands is overpriced for what it shows. He also stated that even if NFLN has a Giants or Jets game NY will still get the game on a local station.

Dolan can whine about Sunday Ticket all he wants, he does the exact same thing not allowing D*, Dish, or Fios MSG in HD. Being a D* subscriber w/ HD I have stopped watching the Knicks (that wasn't hard) and the Rangers. I have discovered the Nets on YESHD and they actually play decent basketball.

This says it all. $.61? TWC is probably paying more for LifeTime Women. Get it now, people? It's not about the NFLN being "too expensive for our customers", as TWC claims. It's all about positioning. TWC wants to put it into a sports tier and immediately raise the price of that service from $2.95/mo to about $7.95/mo-- because they know fans would pay it just to get the NFLN. That means they would reap about $4.39/mo ($5 from jacking up the cost of the sports tier MINUS $.61 for their cost to provide the NFLN) PER CUSTOMER. That's the NFL's beef-- they don't want their fans robbed by TWC, using their product as a smokescreen.

This is it for me. I'm gone.

Was it for me last week. Directv installer coming out next week to hook me up with the new dish, HD DVR, and access to the most HD content(in the coming weeks, of course). Best of all is the Sunday Ticket deal they're currently running. If you're going to do it though, I recommend doing it soon. They have so many orders now that installations are being scheduled in October now for orders placed today.

Is it still HD Lite?

Is it still HD Lite?


Right now it is. In 2 weeks it won't be. In 2 weeks everyone else starts playing catch-up to Directv. Or so the rumors go.

Right now it is. In 2 weeks it won't be. In 2 weeks everyone else starts playing catch-up to Directv. Or so the rumors go.

If D* indeed stops doing HD-Lite, I will definitely defect. I am quite sure many others on this very forum will do the same. :)

Don't know if anyone of you heard this, but this morning on the local sports radio station (850 the Buzz), Brad Phillips (TWC VP for the Raleigh region) came on to defend the TWC position on not carrying MASN.

Same stuff we've all heard about how TWC cares about keeping costs down, sports tier, bla bla bla. Then, he went on to say that the 8 games on the NFL Network will be broadcast on local TV. The host said ... "wait a minute, are you saying that all 8 games will be shown here in Raleigh?". And, Mr. Phillips said, "YES". Of course, that's a lie (whether intentional or unintentional).

I don't really care since I ordered Dish Network and can't wait for it to be installed in about a week. I'll get all of what I got with TWC for $13/mo less-- with tons more programming (especially HD). Good riddance.

Icing on the cake (I ordered Dish today):

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6476460.html

Nobody budging on Time Warner-NFL Network tiff

Thursday, September 06

The NFL Network will conclude its second season of televising live games on Dec. 29 when the New England Patriots play at the New York Giants. There might be a playoff berth at stake. Or home-field advantage for the postseason.

But unless there is real movement in negotiations between Time Warner Cable and the NFL Network, that game won't be seen on cable television in Berkshire County.

That's because the NFL Network and Time Warner have yet to come to an agreement on a contract that would determine where the NFL Network would appear on Time Warner's cable systems.

At issue: Time Warner's position remains that placement of the NFL Network on the cable system's sports tier would be the best place for the network. The Time Warner sports tier on digital cable costs local customers an extra $1.95 per month beyond standard programming and includes the NBA Network, College Sports Television (CSTV), SpeedChannel and the Tennis Channel.

NFL Network executives want their channel on standard cable.

"I'm aware that discussions are happening. Having said that, our position really remains the same," said Peter Taubkin, Time Warner Cable's vice president of
Advertisement
government relations and public affairs in its Albany, N.Y., office. "We've always wanted to carry the network. We believe the fairest and best way to do it is on the sports tier. That remains our position and our hope. We feel that's the best way to make that programming available to those customers who would choose to pay for it.

"Unfortunately," Taubkin continued, "the NFL Network doesn't seem to be agreeable to that position."

NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky agreed the two sides don't share the same thoughts.

"We extended an olive branch. They took the branch and snapped it," he said. "They weren't interested in supplying the channel. We've been talking to them for four years."

Time Warner is the primary cable-television source in Berkshire County, though some pockets of the county receive their cable TV from Charter Communications. Charter also does not have an agreement with the NFL Network, which began televising live league games in 2006.

This year, the network will show eight games, all on Thursdays or Saturdays, beginning on Thanksgiving. In addition to live games, the NFL Network carries live team news conferences, shows highlights, and airs news programs. This year, NFL Network will rebroadcast as many as five edited games from the previous Sunday.

"We're looking at water cooler games or a small game nobody saw," Palansky said. "Seventy percent of NFL fans are displaced. They're not in the cities of their favorite teams."

The NFL Network can be seen by 43.8 million households, up 10 percent from a year ago. According to the network, Time Warner is the only leading cable or satellite provider not carrying the NFL Network on a network's regular channel lineup.

Palansky said Cox Communications and Comcast Cable, two of the top three cable providers in the United States, have the NFL Network on a regular digital tier.

"They believe we should be a pay-extra channel," Palansky said of Time Warner. "We believe it should be more strongly distributed than that."

Taubkin said Time Warner will continue to pursue an agreement with the NFL Network. He would not say if cable costs would increase if there is an agreement.

"You look at NBA TV, and they have 96 live games," Taubkin said. "They certainly see the wisdom of being on a sports tier. Here you're talking about eight games that, just two years ago, were available on other networks. It's never been a question of do we want to carry the channel — we certainly do."

"It can be solved," said the NFL Network's Palansky. "We're exhausting all avenues to settle it."

The question is: Will there be an agreement by Thanksgiving?

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_6813896?source=most_emailed

NFL TV
NFL Network games come at a premium on Comcast

Tom FitzGerald, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, September 6, 2007

In its efforts to boost its 4-year-old NFL Network by giving it regular-season games, the National Football League has run into a flying wedge led by Comcast, the nation's largest cable provider.

The NFL Network broadcast eight prime-time regular-season games last season and will do eight more this year, including the 49ers-Bengals game on Dec. 15.

Comcast, which has 24.2 million subscribers, including 1.6 million in the Bay Area, announced last year it would move the NFL Network this season from a broad digital package to an extra-pay sports tier. It would cost customers about an extra $5 a month, although California customers are being offered a $2.99 introductory rate through this season.

In any case, local fans still would be able to see the 49ers-Bengals game because the NFL mandates that any game shown on a cable channel must also be aired by a local over-the-air station, in this case NBC affiliates Channels 11, 3 and 8. But if those fans want to see any of the other seven NFL Network games beginning Thanksgiving night, they'll have to pony up.

The NFL Network has 43.8 million subscribers among the satellite companies and 210 cable providers, but it estimates it would lose 1 million of its 8 million Comcast subscribers if they had to pay for the privilege.

The fledgling network, anxious to gain viewers rather than lose them (and the commensurate advertising revenue), sued Comcast in New York State Supreme Court, but a judge ruled in favor of Comcast. The NFL appealed, and a ruling is expected later this fall.

"We're confident that our position will prevail," NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky said. "What Comcast is doing is taking something away that was on the digital package without refunding the people - and then asking them to pay for it. A judge should be able to see with ease that customers are not being treated fairly."

Comcast Bay Area Region spokesperson Lorena Hernandez said the NFL Network dramatically raised its rates to cable providers last year, an increase that Comcast initially absorbed.

"The NFL is saying we're the ones raising the fees," she said. "We're not. This is just another example of the NFL being driven by profit at the expense of our fans. They took eight games that previously would have been part of their regional broadcasts (on other networks) and put them on the NFL Network and would have imposed a 400 percent increase to cable providers for 2007."

Putting the network on an extra-pay tier - along with NBA TV, the Speed Channel, the Tennis Channel and the Fox Soccer Channel - is "the fairest and best way for our customers," Hernandez said. "Those who don't want it won't be forced to pay for it."

Besides the regular-season games, the NFL Network has round-the-clock coverage of the league, including 15-minute recaps of every game and re-broadcasts of Super Bowls and other "classic games." It also shows two college bowl games (Texas and Insight), plus the Senior Bowl all-star game.

The network charges cable providers two cents per day per subscriber, Palansky said. "They get several minutes of advertising time, plus extra time during our live games," he said. "They can recoup some good money there."

According to Palansky, "the real story that's missing is Comcast tried to get these eight games for Versus (which Comcast owns)."

But Justice Bernard Fried of the New York State Supreme Court ruled that a 2004 agreement with the NFL allowed Comcast to exercise the sports-tier option if it was unable to reach a deal with the league for those eight games.

Meanwhile, the NFL Network says that more than 200 cable companies and the major satellite companies - Dish Network and DirecTV - are offering it without charging extra for it.

Trying to drum up public support, the network has a Web site called www.iwantnflnetwork.com, which pictures a football official with the headline "Unsportsmanlike conduct by the cable companies." It urges customers of Comcast and other providers that aren't playing ball with the NFL - including Time Warner, the No. 2 operator nationally - to complain to government officials and switch to a satellite company.

The NFL isn't used to losing at anything. According to the Wall Street Journal, its $3.7 billion in fees from the networks is more than Major League Baseball, the NBA, the NHL and NASCAR get combined.

What's new on TV this NFL season: In an exchange of former quarterbacks, Ron Jaworski replaces Joe Theismann as an analyst on "Monday Night Football." ESPN hopes "Jaws" is more compatible with the joking style of sports columnist Tony Kornheiser. ... Ex-Giants rushing star Tiki Barber and MSNBC host Keith Olbermann join NBC's "Football Night in America," which precedes "Sunday Night Football." Former Steelers coach Bill Cowher is now with CBS' "NFL Today." And Emmitt Smith, Bill Parcells and Keyshawn Johnson have joined ESPN.

NFL Network games

All games at 5:15 p.m.

Thur., Nov. 22 - Indianapolis at Atlanta

Thur., Nov. 29 - Green Bay at Dallas

Thur., Dec. 6 - Chicago at Washington

Thur., Dec. 13 - Denver at Houston

Sat., Dec. 15 - Cincinnati at 49ers

Thur., Dec. 20 - Pittsburgh at St. Louis

Sat., Dec. 22 - Dallas at Carolina

Sat., Dec. 29 - New England at N.Y. Giants

E-mail Tom FitzGerald at tfitzgerald@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/06/SPRMRV2F0.DTL

This article appeared on page W - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle

NFL Network underexposed?
By STEVE KING
kings@phillynews.com
AS THE COMPETITION on the NFL gridiron gets under way tonight, so does the competition on the tube.

Nearing the completion of its fourth year of existence, the NFL Network has been a football freak's dream channel. But the problem the NFL feels it's facing now is that some of its football fans will be unable to experience all the amenities the network has to offer this season because of a continuing debate between the NFL Network and cable companies throughout the country.

In May, the network lost a lawsuit to Comcast Corp. that allowed the nation's largest cable company to move the NFL Network from its basic package to its sports tier.

According to Charles Coplin, the NFL Network's vice president of programming, the network is pleased with its growth – more than 41 million viewers have the channel - but says he believes that football fans will be slighted this year because of the failed agreement.

"If you're a football fan and do not have the NFL Network in your home, you're missing out," Coplin said.

Comcast, which last year carried the channel on its basic digital tier package, has now packaged the network on its sports tier for the upcoming season. The company says it would have to increase the cable bill of each of its consumers in order to keep the channel on its basic digital tier. Instead, fans who wish to have the channel can order it in a separate package on cable or switch to a satellite provider, like DirectTV, which has an exclusive deal with the NFL for its Sunday Ticket plan that includes the channel in its basic packages.

Still, representatives at Comcast says local fans will see plenty of football, with Eagles games available weekly on basic cable channels in addition to four or five out-of-market games spread throughout the weekend.

"Consistent with our agreement with the NFL, we offer the NFL Network as part of our Sports Entertainment Package," said David Cohen, executive vice president of Comcast. "This is the best and fairest way to provide this programming to our customers because those viewers who want to watch the network will be able to see it, while others who prefer not to receive this expensive programming will not be forced to pay for it."

Comcast representatives said they have heard no complaints from the decision to move the network off its digital tier.

Television consultant Neal Pilson said the dispute, like others before it, will pass in time.

"This is something that has become the norm as far as the war between cable providers and sports networks," he said yesterday. "This is what the business is about. The economic dispute between two powerful entities boils down to just a matter of strength and leverage for one side. It'll eventually get resolved."

Although the NFL Network is able to provide behind-the-scene coverage of training camps, drafts and combines as well as pregame and postgame access that other channels can't, Coplin says it would be naïve to think that all NFL games will eventually be converted to NFL Network. With new shows and expanded programming this season, which includes some college and high school football games, Coplin said he doesn't think the court ruling will affect die-hard football fans from getting the channel at whatever cost.

Pilson noted the assets that should help the NFL Network to continue to grow, including the country's dominant sport and its followers' insatiable appetite for everything football. Still, with all that, he said that the channel will have to exercise patience.

"Even with the dispute the NFL Network is still in 40 million homes," he said. "ESPN is over 100 million homes and has been around for 25-plus years. The NFL wants to grow so fast, but they have to understand it can't happen overnight. It's the type of system we work in." *

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/20070906_NFL_Network_underexposed_.html

From the cover of today's USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2007-09-06-nfl-media_N.htm

"The NFL annually ranks as the most-watched programming in sports and entertainment. In February, Super Bowl XLI generated a 42.6 TV rating and an estimated 139.8 million viewers watched some portion of the broadcast, according to Nielsen Media Research. The AFC and NFC championship games in January grabbed bigger ratings than the premiere that month of American Idol, Fox's entertainment juggernaut, as well as the Academy Awards, Emmy Awards, Grammy Awards and Golden Globes.


"There's nothing with as much pop as NFL football,".

Jeez, I can't see dedicating an entire channel to just 8 games a year. This makes the re-runs on MHD or early Discovery HD Theater seem positively bountiful by comparison.

8 games a year sounds like a proper use for pay per view, not a dedicated channel. You could preempt the generally lame programming on Mojo for just 8 games a year.

I really can't see paying a higher cable bill and wasting bandwidth on a channel that only has 8 games worth of content. If I really care about any of these games I can catch them at ESPN Zone or another sports bar that bothers to have their HDTVs set up right. What is the need for this channel?:confused:

Jeez, I can't see dedicating an entire channel to just 8 games a year. This makes the re-runs on MHD or early Discovery HD Theater seem positively bountiful by comparison.

8 games a year sounds like a proper use for pay per view, not a dedicated channel. You could preempt the generally lame programming on Mojo for just 8 games a year.

I really can't see paying a higher cable bill and wasting bandwidth on a channel that only has 8 games worth of content. If I really care about any of these games I can catch them at ESPN Zone or another sports bar that bothers to have their HDTVs set up right. What is the need for this channel?:confused:

NFL Network also offers game replays during the week, great specials on teams during training camp, super bowl specials, HoF inductions, Daily NFL Total access for the most up to date info, weekly news conferences from all 32 teams, and more

NFL Network also offers game replays during the week, great specials on teams during training camp, super bowl specials, HoF inductions, Daily NFL Total access for the most up to date info, weekly news conferences from all 32 teams, and more

All of which have horrible ratings and appeal to a small number of people.

All of which have horrible ratings and appeal to a small number of people.

Really? So if we apply that logic to channels like Home Shopping, all that should be moved to tiered programming as well. Let's get rid of A&E too. History Channel? Let's tier that also since its scope is so limited, and its ratings so god awful

Really? So if we apply that logic to channels like Home Shopping, all that should be moved to tiered programming as well. Let's get rid of A&E too. History Channel? Let's tier that also since its scope is so limited, and its ratings so god awful

I have no problem with that. In fact, many of these channels are moving off of the extended basic analog tier on Charter in my area. I already have the sports tier and would not have a problem if that is where the channel ends up being located if Charter ever adds it.

Really? So if we apply that logic to channels like Home Shopping, all that should be moved to tiered programming as well. Let's get rid of A&E too. History Channel? Let's tier that also since its scope is so limited, and its ratings so god awful

But they don't cost $0.70 a month. In fact the shopping channels pay to be carried so they keep your bill down.

I thinkit is VERY rare that a consumer switch from cable or any other provider over Lifetime, Discovery, A&E or the other limited interest networks being mentioned here.
Lack of NFLN is causing people to switch to satellite or be PISSED at their cable co.

OFFENSIVE MOTION

October 14, 2007 -- The National Football League has renewed its battle with Time Warner Cable, Cablevision and the nation's other cable companies over its NFL Network.

The league, which is not happy that its four-year-old channel reaches just 44 million homes, is in the middle of a mass e-mail campaign to get fans involved in its campaign to get more cable providers to offer the channel as part of basic service. It is sending 24 million e-mails a week to football fans (the latest one went out last Wednesday) urging them to contact their representative on Capitol Hill, the Federal Communications Commission and even their governor.

The NFL is also claiming that some regional carriers are taking the roughly 70-cents-a-month fee they pay to the league and then tripling the fee or worse by charging fans as much as $10 a month to get the NFL Network into their homes.

Time Warner Cable, which is piped into 1.4 million homes in the metro area, and Cablevision, with 3.1 million subscribers, do not carry the NFL Network at all, claiming there isn't wide enough appeal for the channel.

"Cablevision and Time Warner are abusing their monopoly power," says Seth Palansky, a spokesman for the NFL. "They treat independent networks, like the NFL Network, differently than their own despite the FCC guidelines. People need to contact their government officials and have them stop Time Warner and [Chuck and Jim] Dolan."

The NFL wants the providers to carry it on basic service - thus assuring wider distribution. TWC plans to include the NFL Network as part of its $1.95-a- month sport tier package - if it picks it up. Cablevision hasn't said where it will place the NFL Network should it decide to offer it.

Late last year the league began urging New York football fans to call their cable providers and badger them to settle a deal that would bring the NFL Network into their homes.

Round two of the battle comes as the NFL Network's 2007 season is set to begin on Thanksgiving night with a game between Peyton Manning's Indianapolis Colts and the Atlanta Falcons.

In addition to the game on Turkey Day, the network will broadcast match-ups every Thursday and Saturday nights until the end of the regular season.

The NFL Network, in hopes of getting the cable companies to carry the channel, are dangling sweeteners like having the channel pick up the cost of providing high-definition broadcasts and providing up to 18 units of free advertising spots, Polansky said.

"You have two private companies here, there's no need to get the government involved," said Maureen Huff a TWC spokeswomen. "We're doing our best to hold costs in line for our customers."

"There are only seven out-of-town games all season on the NFL Network, and the NFL is trying to force cable customers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the channel all year round," said Cablevision spokesman Jim Maiella.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142007/business/offensive_motion.htm

I got that email from the NFL. They didn't give me a chance to write back and say, "Sure, I'll bug Cablevision about the NFL network as soon as you let them have Sunday ticket."

I got that email from the NFL. They didn't give me a chance to write back and say, "Sure, I'll bug Cablevision about the NFL network as soon as you let them have Sunday ticket."

+1...

i can live without the 8 games... and i refuse to feel sorry for either the nfl OR comcast...

I got that email from the NFL. They didn't give me a chance to write back and say, "Sure, I'll bug Cablevision about the NFL network as soon as you let them have Sunday ticket."

I could not say it any better. Open the Sunday ticket to TWC and I would be glad to help them.

Cable had a chance to get Sunday Ticket in 2004 but passed. D* is willing to use Sunday Ticket as a loss leader to get subs. Seems cable was not.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA480250.html

Cable had a chance to get Sunday Ticket in 2004 but passed. D* is willing to use Sunday Ticket as a loss leader to get subs. Seems cable was not.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA480250.html

DirecTV was desperate to keep the ST because without it, they would have immediately lost more than 500K-1M customers. All of DirecTV's eggs are in one proverbial basket. It's arguable that they might not have even survived the early years against DISH without NFL ST exclusivity. 2 years ago, their HD service was virtually non-existent and their customer service sucked (still does).

David Hendricks
Web Posted: 10/16/2007 09:45 PM CDT
San Antonio Express-News

In the heat of the playoff hunt in November and December, Dallas Cowboys fans in San Antonio may be looking for somebody to punch.

Time Warner Cable in San Antonio likely will not broadcast two Cowboys games. That means fans will have to find friends with the NFL Network, visit a sports bar or listen to the radio.

That's a small price to pay to keep the NFL from really making people pay.

The Cowboys' contests with Green Bay on Nov. 29 and the Carolina Panthers on Dec. 22 are among the eight games the NFL is withholding for its network.

In case you've missed the action, Time Warner is in a contract dispute with the NFL Network. The cable operator wants to broadcast the network on its specially priced sports package. The NFL wants Time Warner either to swallow the cost of the pro football channel or to pass on the cost to all its customers.

A court already has ruled against the NFL Network in a similar dispute with the nation's largest cable company, Comcast Corp. Comcast won the right this summer to put the NFL Network in its sports package.

The NFL Network still is trying to use its eight regular season games this season to pressure Time Warner. Time Warner is fighting back on behalf of customers who do not want to subsidize a network they don't want to see.

The NFL Network does not have the kind of year-round programming to justify being in a standard cable package. Sure, there is high interest for the eight regular-season games that Fox, CBS, NBC and ESPN won't broadcast.

But who would want to pay for the NFL Network during the playoffs, which the other networks will broadcast? Who would want to pay for the NFL Network during the February-September offseason?

Not many.

If the NFL Network obtained a foothold in standard cable tiers, it would increase the number of games each season for its own network, where it could sell its own advertising. Don't be surprised if the best games suddenly are all on the NFL Network.

If that business model prevails, the National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League and college sports all could attempt the same.

The result: Sports broadcasting will drive up the cost of all television programming. And consumers shouldn't tolerate that.

That's like asking Cowboys fans to pay for a first-run movie channel for people too cheap to pay for a theater ticket.

The NFL Network is losing the battle. Last year, the NFL Network asked football fans to contact their cable provider if they did not receive the network. This fall, they are telling fans to contact their politicians.

Five local members of the Texas Legislature recently responded. They signed a letter asking the Federal Communications Commission to assign an arbitrator to break the NFL Network-Time Warner impasse.

That may make the lawmakers look good to their football-fan constituents. Don't be fooled. The government has no business being dragged into a contract negotiation between two institutions that make millions of dollars.

The television market should stay as close as possible to the rule that those who pay should be the same as those who benefit. Time Warner is doing everyone, even sports fans, a favor. It is insisting that the NFL Network be placed in specially priced sports packages for those who want to watch that programming the most.

Time Warner's tactic will ensure that ordinary viewers will see more NFL games in the future without paying more.

So if the Nov. 29 and Dec. 22 Cowboys games arrive and no deal has been signed to broadcast the games locally, don't blame Time Warner.

Blame the NFL.

dhendricks@express-news.net
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/stories/MYSA101707.01E.hendricks.2b8d6c1.html

I believe 'greed' is the appropriate word.

10/19/2007 02:09 AM CDT
William Pack, Express-News Business Writer

San Antonio may not be a major media market and still cannot claim a National Football League team as its own, but it's one of the biggest battlegrounds in the emotional dispute over NFL Network programming.

"It's a football hotbed," said Seth Palansky, spokesman for the network.

That hotbed has been stoked to full flame by the inability of the network and Time Warner Cable to agree on a broadcast deal. Time Warner already is running local advertisements explaining its side of the dispute, and the NFL Network plans its own local campaign.

Palansky said Thursday that discussions between the two sides had ended without resolution and that the network would not be available on Time Warner this year, but cable company spokesman Jon Gary Herrera said that was not the case. He said Time Warner officials remain hopeful a compromise can be reached before the first Cowboys game is broadcast on the network Nov. 29.

Nation's cable leaders

Basic cable customer totals determine the biggest cable company operations in the nation's cities. The top 10 cities and companies in October.

Herrera also said Time Warner opposes a push by five state legislators to get a Federal Commission arbitrator involved in the dispute. But the network sees that as the fairest way to reach a resolution.

San Antonio "absolutely" is a key battleground in the dispute — in large part because it has so many diehard Dallas Cowboys fans, Herrera said. If Time Warner's San Antonio viewership is combined with the company's customers in Austin, it could be the largest cable market blacked out from the NFL Network.

The October count from Nielsen Media Research listed Time Warner's system in San Antonio as the ninth-largest in the country.

All but two of the larger systems already get the NFL Network. But those two — the Cablevision Systems Corp. viewer base in Hicksville, N.Y., near New York City, and the Bright House Networks operation in Winter Park, Fla. — probably aren't as interested as San Antonio fans.

Two of the eight NFL Network games this season involve the Cowboys, and another features the Houston Texans.

Hicksville viewers will get to see the Dec. 29 game between the New York Giants and New England Patriots that is part of the network's package. Other networks will broadcast that game to viewers in the teams' hometowns.

Winter Park, Fla., with 379,186 Bright House viewers, is the only system larger than San Antonio that would be excluded from all the network games.

If Time Warner customers in Austin were added to San Antonio's, the total would dwarf Winter Park's, however. Austin's Time Warner system is ranked 22nd nationally with 236,504 basic customers.

Cable systems often cut up larger media markets, including New York and Los Angeles. That explains why San Antonio can rank No. 9, but L.A., with the nation's second-largest media market, has no cable system in the top 25.

San Antonio's NFL Network battle is into a second season.

The fight started last year when local Time Warner customers had to look elsewhere to catch a Dallas game carried by the NFL Network.

While the NFL wants the programming and its cost spread to the broadest base of customers, Time Warner insists it should go on a sports tier purchased by the most devoted fans.

Time Warner already has started to expand its advertising campaign to explain its side of the story, and Herrera said more money will be spent in San Antonio than other markets where the debate is not as intense.

The communications company ran a full-page ad on the dispute in the San Antonio Express-News on Thursday and will repeat one in a few days. Similar ads are running in Austin, Herrera said. In addition, Time Warner channels will broadcast 30-second TV spots on the matter this weekend.

Palansky said the network is planning to spend more advertising money in San Antonio as well, particularly in partnership with the cable and satellite television providers in the area that do carry the network. As more people learn how available and affordable the network is outside of Time Warner, NFL's subscriber base will continue to grow, he said.

Smaller TV providers such as U-Verse, GVTC, Grande Communications and satellite services already offer the NFL Network here.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA101907.01C.nflnetwork_impasse101907.42474.html

The above article needed better fact checking. “L.A., with the nation's second-largest media market, has no cable system in the top 25.” Note the following chart from the L.A. Times. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=68592&d=1164307710
On July 31, 2006 Time Warner Cable (TWC) replaced Adelphia and Comcast and serves it was reported about 1.9 million subscribers in Los Angeles.

Here's a story that was on WOAI (NBC Affiliate) in San Antonio last night. You can also watch the story via the link. The reporter is giving the TWC representative some grief.

It looks like TWC-SA is proposing a PPV option for the 2 Cowboys games that local fans on the TWC will miss. San Antonio is the front line for TWC on this front because it is one of the largest markets in the country and the Cowboys are considered the home team.

I still say that TWC-SA will find a way to broadcast the 2 Cowboys games later this year even if TWC is unable to reach a corporate wide agreement. The local franchise is getting hit by all of the major media outlets now and it is creating tons of free publicity for DirecTV and DISH.


Time Warner vs. NFL Network (http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=98814ff3-267b-4feb-b752-62dbbcdd43a3)
Reported by: Aubrey Mika

It's a fight that could cause people in San Antonio to miss two Dallas Cowboy games this year. The games are being carried on the NFL Network, which isn't available it you have Time Warner Cable.

On Monday, Time Warner sent the NFL a proposal to get that changed. But is it going to work?

Time Warner sent a letter to the NFL, proposing a deal where people could buy whichever game they wanted, which is similar to Pay-Per-View.

The NFL says Time Warner is taking advantage of its customers and they won't be a part of it.

Time Warner customers are in jeopardy of not seeing two big Cowboys games this year because the company doesn't offer the NFL Network.

"I would think that would be one of the options in their basic package at least," said Celeste Rojas.

Time Warner says they are dedicated to looking out for their customers, so they're asking for a Pay-Per-View option.

"Do you really think you could reach a deal in the next six weeks?" asked News 4 WOAI's Aubrey Mika.

"We could reach a deal in the next six hours," said Jon Gary Herrera, who is with Time Warner Public Affairs.

But the NFL says there is a 0% chance they will accept Time Warner's proposal.

They say there are other cable companies in town that offer the NFL Network, and Time Warner is using this as a publicity stunt.

"They say you all are losing a lot of customers because of this and this is just a stunt to get those back," said Mika.

"No, absolutely not," said Herrera.

Time Warner says the ball is in the NFL's court. They are the ones who determine the price of this proposed Pay-Per-View.

"The charge is determined by the NFL," said Herrera. "They don't have to charge a thing. They can make it free."

Time Warner says it remains optimistic, even though the NFL says this is just getting people's hopes up and a deal is not going to be reached. Time Warner says they'll wait to hear that for themselves.

I say go Time Warner. The NFL didn't make any new games they just shuffled them around & hoped we would pay for them. If the nfl does not take the pay per view offer then they don't really want the games to be seen.

So let me get this straight... NFL Network charges 70 cents per household, in addition to getting to sell all its own advertising on the networks. How exactly is it that they aren't going to be profitable here?

You'd think that the tactic they would want to go with would be to have the channel be in as many homes as cheap as possible, and then once people are hooked on the NFL network, start driving up the price. Seems to work for the Cablecos (first six months for free! After that, ten trillion dollars a month! And yet, I still haven't cancelled my service.)

Time-Warner's proposal rejected
NFL Network has no interest in pay-per-view
By Matt Young
Originally published 02:05 a.m., October 24, 2007
Updated 02:05 a.m., October 24, 2007

At Tuesday's NFL owners meetings in Philadelphia, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell emphasized they are committed to the NFL Network through at least 2011.

On the same day, Time Warner Cable expressed its frustration with the network.

Time Warner Cable, which doesn't air the NFL Network, proposed offering the network's eight NFL games on a pay-per-view basis and giving the profits to the NFL Network. The NFL Network shot down that offer Monday night.

"That is a proposal?" said Seth Palansky, a NFL Network spokesman. "It's a desperate gimmick."

The quick dismissal of the idea has Time Warner Cable disheartened.

"We made an offer where we would provide a channel for the NFL to put the games on -- not the entire network, just the eight games -- that would allow their fans and our customers a chance to watch the games," said Ron McMillan, Time Warner's Texas vice president for government affairs.

"We'd let them price the games however they want to price them, and then we'd pass the money right to them. We wouldn't be making a profit off the games, but it would give us a chance to air the games for our customers."

The NFL Network is not open to that idea, because it wants to be included in Time Warner's basic cable package at no extra charge to cable customers. Time Warner insists that the network be put on a sports tier for which interested customers would pay extra.

The topic was broached at the owners meetings, because the NFL Network is feeling some heat from the league's owners. The network is in a dispute with several cable companies, including Time Warner, causing its reach to be limited to 35 million homes instead of the 50 million the league expected at this point.

Despite that, the NFL sent out a release after Tuesday's meeting saying the network would continue airing games through at least 2011.

"We guarantee NFL Network will be airing the Thursday-Saturday package of games through the 2011 season," the release said. "There is zero percent chance of anything different. After the initial contract expires in 2011, NFL Network will again be a bidder of future NFL live game packages."

Jones, the chairman of the NFL Network committee, said he had been getting numerous calls from areas which will not be able to see the Cowboys' Nov. 29 game with Green Bay, a contest between two of the NFC's top teams, because the cable companies in their areas don't get the network.

McMillan places the blame for that problem at the feet of the NFL Network.

"If they want to have distribution of their games and are really concerned about Cowboys fans, they would take the offer," McMillan said. "It's a serious offer. They should take the offer if they have their fans' best interest at heart."

Contact sports editor Matt Young at 886-3702 or youngm@caller.com
http://www.caller.com/news/2007/oct/24/time-warners-proposal-rejected/?printer=1/

League wants him to make deal to get NFL Network on cable

Rick Gosselin writes about pro football for The Dallas Morning News.
08:46 PM CDT on Thursday, October 25, 2007

PHILADELPHIA – The NFL once viewed Cowboys owner Jerry Jones as too slick of a salesman for his own good.

In 1995, Jones cut deals with Nike and Pepsi as official sponsors of Texas Stadium – not the Cowboys – which circumvented the NFL Properties trust that pools and shares revenue among the 32 teams. The NFL responded by filing a $200 million lawsuit against Jones. The NFL considered him a rogue salesman.

This month, the NFL named Jones the head of its NFL Network committee. The league wants him to broker a deal with cable companies that has the potential of doubling the audience for its network.

The NFL needs Jones to work his sales magic on behalf of his 31 partners and break a stalemate in negotiations with the major cable suppliers.

"I don't think this is happenstance," Jones said of his promotion on the NFL Network committee. "I would like to think we have a reputation of really rolling our sleeves up, getting in there and trying to work the problem."

And it's a big problem.

The NFL Network has never been televised by the cable systems of Time-Warner and Cablevision. Time-Warner is in 13 million homes, Cablevision in 3.5 million.

The NFL Network had been included in the digital basic package of Comcast. That cable supplier is in 24 million homes, but only 9 million of them are digital.

After the NFL Network began airing a small slate of its own games last fall, Comcast decided to sell it as a premium sports channel. That reduced the number of homes with the NFL Network on Comcast from 9 million in 2006 to 1 million in 2007.

The NFL Network is airing seven late-season games in 2007. Two of them involve the Cowboys, who are automatic ratings for any network – against Green Bay on Nov. 29 and Carolina on Dec. 22.

But the last game on the card is the most intriguing – New England at the New York Giants on the final Saturday night of the season. What if the Patriots are 15-0 and playing for a perfect season that night? The NFL Network would offer the smallest potential audience for that game of any network.

"Eight million people last year would have been able to see that game that aren't going to see it this year unless they pay Comcast $8 a month for the next 12 months," NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said. "We think that's wrong. That's why we're taking the position we're taking.

"Our cable operators are trying to restrict distribution to a point where we're not comfortable. We think it should be available to a broader audience. That's the fundamental aspect of our broadcast policy.

"The last time I looked, 95 of the top 100 cable shows were all NFL games. So we know we're the most popular programming on cable television. That's been supported by the facts."

D'Arcy Rudnay, senior vice president of corporate communications for Comcast, said the company's premium sports package is "the best and fairest way" to offer the NFL Network.

"Those viewers who want to watch the network will be able to see it, while others who prefer not to receive this expensive programming will not be forced to pay for it," Rudnay said by e-mail. "In addition, Comcast customers continue to receive the full schedule of NFL games aired on broadcast TV and ESPN, including all of their home team matchups."

The NFL Network, now in its fifth year, is in 35 million homes. Goodell said the league hoped it would be in 50 million homes by now. And that 35 million is in a holding pattern. Goodell said the NFL broke off talks with Comcast in August.
The NFL hopes to take advantage of Jerry Jones' abilities as a salesman.

The NFL hopes to take advantage of Jerry Jones' abilities as a salesman.

Comcast is based in Philadelphia, where the NFL held its annual fall meeting this week. Jones quietly met with Comcast officials Monday.

"They're being very tough," Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney said. "They're in Pittsburgh, so I know. But I think this deal is doable – and I think Jerry was the right guy to pick."

So does Jones. He believes in the product he is selling – NFL football. And he believes in the NFL Network.

"The main reason I'm here is to represent our ownership – the energy we have, the passion we have," Jones said. "The bottom line is we know this network. We know its value to our fans. We want broad-base viewership in anything we do, and our network allows 24-7 football. This is going to be a cornerstone asset for the future of the National Football League."

Now the NFL wants Jones to be an over-the-top salesman. The league needs him to get this deal done. Millions of eyes – and millions of dollars – are at stake.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/rgosselin/stories/102607dnspogosselin.25e3cf4.html#

This is one of the rare times I side with TWC (which I am a subscriber). I'm a Giants fan, and will miss the potentially huge Giants-Pats matchup at the end of the year on NFL network. But I'd rather miss that game than have my cable bill go up or have to pay $2/month for a sports-tier-package I don't want. It's one football game. I miss a lot of NFL games as it is (games of teams other than the Giants) that I'd be curious to see, but in the end, I don't want it bad enough to pay extra for it. And I don't want to see ONE Giants game at the end of the year so bad that I'd pay extra for it, either.

The NFL network is holding out for a better deal (like most independant sports channels do), but the problem is that not enough people care about missing 8 NFL games, only one of which might be "your" team.

"Eight million people last year would have been able to see that game that aren't going to see it this year unless they pay Comcast $8 a month for the next 12 months," NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said. "We think that's wrong. That's why we're taking the position we're taking.

Let's see, by creating a package of games and keeping it to themselves, the NFL was seeking an opportunity to gain a strong foothold on cable systems for their network. Additionally, they were planning on taking all of the commercial revenue for themselves.

In order to do this, they removed regular season games from the other networks' packages and Sunday Ticket. Now Goodell thinks it's wrong for Comcast to limit distribution of their network? How sad for him and the owners.

Personally, I don't think any 24 hour networks dedicated to one sport are necessary or viable in a free market.

This idiocy is why I left Time Warner. They raise rates all the time, and add channels I had no interest in all the time, yet take a stand on a channel of the most popular sport in America. Idiots. I'm with Directv now, and I'm enjoying the best HD selection and quality, whereas with Time Warner I had about 6 channels in HD, some of varying quality. I also pay less now. Good riddance.

UW prof: Pols talk, but can't force a deal

Jeff Richgels and Judith Davidoff — 10/31/2007 10:49 am

A legislative proposal to solve the stalemate between the state's two biggest cable companies and the NFL Network and Big Ten Network is nothing more than political grandstanding, said a UW-Madison professor of telecommunications who follows cable issues closely.

"The state can't force its way into a negotiation between two private companies," said Professor Barry Orton, who advises many communities in their dealings with cable companies. "This bill would have zero impact. It's just a chance for legislators to look like they care about their constituents."

While satellite providers DirecTV and DISH Network and many smaller cable companies have deals to carry the Big Ten Network and the NFL Network, the state's two major cable companies -- Charter Communications and Time Warner -- are at an impasse with the networks. The hangup is that the networks want to be on expanded basic cable, while the big cable companies want to put them on digital sports tiers.

The Big Ten Network is carrying multiple Badger games this season, including Saturday's showdown against top-ranked Ohio State, while the NFL Network is carrying the Green Bay-Dallas game on Nov. 29 -- the second straight year a Packers game has been on the NFL Network.

Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, and Rep. Kitty Rhoades, R-Hudson, said their bill, which hasn't been written yet, would establish an arbitration system to settle disputes between the sports networks and cable companies.

"Love of the Packers and Badgers is a common bond that unites our diverse state and brings families and friends together," Hansen said. "I wish this legislation wasn't needed, but it is time for the fans to have a voice in this dispute."

Jay Wadd, Hansen's chief of staff, said the bill would soon be circulated for co-sponsors.

"I have a feeling this is going to be a popular bill," he said.

Wadd acknowledged there is concern about the ability to enforce the bill, but said that should not stop legislators from trying to resolve the problem.

"We're going to find out" if it can be enforced," Wadd said. "We're going to give it our best shot and get this done."

Charter spokesman John Miller said because the company hasn't seen a copy of the legislation yet, it is unable to comment on the specifics of the proposal "other than to note that federal law prohibits governmental authority over programming and pricing."

Miller reiterated that Charter wants to carry the networks and knows fans want them, but added that putting them on expanded basic would force all subscribers, even those who don't watch sports, to pay for them.

"We continue to hope that (the networks) will do the right thing for fans and agree to place their programming on our digital sports tier, or even as an 'a la carte' channel," Miller said.

No one from the Big Ten Network could be reached for comment by press time.

NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky said the proposal appears to be a fair solution.

"We want fans to get access to NFL Network," Palansky said. "We know they want it. If this can help that result, we're all for it."

The NFL Network has asked the Federal Communications Commission to use its authority to force arbitration to solve its disputes with the major cable companies, Multichannel.com reported recently.

NFL Network executives expressed optimism that the FCC would send the carriage disputes to an arbitrator, but cable operators said they don't believe there is precedent for the FCC to make such a ruling and have pledged to fight any attempt to get regulators to intervene in a private business dispute, Multichannel.com reported.

Comcast, one of the nation's largest cable companies, also doesn't believe its negotiations should go to a third-party arbitrator since it has a signed affiliation agreement with NFL Network. Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that the deal allowed Comcast to move NFL Network to a sports tier. The network has appealed.

"We don't believe the FCC has the authority to delegate responsibility to adjudicate program carriage disputes to an arbitrator," said David Cohen, Comcast's executive vice president. "Even if the FCC were to give them (the authority), we would challenge that in court and we would fully expect that a court would agree with us that the FCC was exceeding its authority."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Jeff Richgels and Judith Davidoff — 10/31/2007 10:49 am
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/254277

NFL Net looks to feds for help in cable dispute
Monday, November 05, 2007
John Ourand & Daniel Kaplan - Business First

The NFL Network is looking to federal regulators for help in ending its carriage dispute with the country's largest cable operators.

As part of a new political lobbying effort, the network wants the Federal Communications Commission to let a third-party arbitrator solve the four-year carriage disputes by determining if and how operators should carry the channel.

Network executives are hoping for a ruling as early as next month.

"We're just trying to get the dialogue started so people will look at it," said NFL Network COO Kim Williams. "It is truly almost impossible (to get carriage) if you don't have the leverage of vertical integration (that Comcast and Time Warner have), which clearly we don't."

The network, in separate comment filings Sept. 11 and Oct. 12, told the FCC that an arbitrator should be appointed in these disputes and argues that operators such as Comcast and Time Warner give their own channels preferential treatment at the expense of independent networks.

"I know firsthand that if instead of the NFL Network it was called Versus or the Golf Channel, you don't have to have any guesswork what (carriage it would have)," said Dallas Cowboys owner and NFL Network committee Chairman Jerry Jones, referring to two channels owned by Comcast.

"The company we are talking about here (Comcast), I guess I should go ahead and say it, is a company that depends upon privileges at the government level. And they shouldn't use those privileges to keep fans here from seeing the NFL."

The NFL Network's move virtually ensures that it will not gain digital basic carriage on either Comcast or Time Warner Cable this season.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said he cut off discussions with Comcast in August, and a recent flurry of negative communication between the league and Time Warner shows how contentious the relations remain.

But network executives are optimistic that the FCC will send carriage disputes to an arbitrator, for a number of reasons.

First, previous networks, such as YES and MASN, have had success by getting politicians involved in their disputes and forcing operators to make a deal -- YES with New York City politicians and MASN with the FCC.

Second, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has gained an anti-cable reputation inside the Beltway.

Third, the FCC earlier this year sent a carriage dispute between The America Channel and Comcast to an arbitrator, giving NFL Network executives hope that the commission will look favorably on its request.

Cable operators, however, don't believe there is precedent for the FCC to make such a ruling.

Comcast also doesn't believe its negotiations should go to a third-party arbitrator since it has a signed affiliation agreement with NFL Network.

Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that the deal allowed Comcast to move NFL Network to a sports tier. The network has appealed.

"We don't believe the FCC has the authority to delegate responsibility to adjudicate program carriage disputes to an arbitrator," said David Cohen, Comcast executive vice president.

"Even if the FCC were to give them, we would challenge that in court and we would fully expect that a court would agree with us that the FCC was exceeding its authority."

However, the NFL Network, in its Oct. 12 comment, stated that, "The Commission's rules, adopted at the direction of Congress, aim to protect competition and diversity in the video programming marketplace."

NFL Network's move to embark on an intensive political lobbying campaign is a stark difference from last year, when the network spent tens of millions of dollars on a consumer marketing campaign to pressure operators into cutting a deal.

But with distribution falling and negotiations not moving, NFL Network decided to change its tactics to appeal to regulators.

"It's ironic that the NFL is pursuing this when they exclusively sell Sunday Ticket to DirecTV," said Melinda Witmer, Time Warner Cable's senior vice president and chief programming officer. "The claim that they need assistance from government for fair treatment is ironic."

Frank Hawkins, NFL senior vice president, responded that cable companies "had plenty of opportunity" in both 2002 and 2005 to bid on Sunday Ticket.

He predicted that in 2010, when the DirecTV package is available again, "they (the cable operators) will dither and just not get there again."

Comcast's Cohen, however, points to the difference in license fees. NFL Network is asking for 70 cents, while Versus gets about 25 cents.

He describes Versus as a year-round, multisport network, as opposed to the single-sport NFL Network, which has eight regular-season NFL games as well as college action.

The NFL, by contrast, points out that 95 of the top 100 cable shows in history are NFL broadcasts. And Hawkins slyly notes a recent Stanley Cup game on Versus was beaten by a "Mama's Family" marathon on another network.

Both Cohen and Witmer, however, say the network is charging too much for what it offers.

"The network has not satisfied our price-value equation," Witmer said. "The problem with the NFL is that they just can't accept that our equation is not adding up to what they want."

The NFL Network's Williams also points to channels, such as the forthcoming MLB Channel, that Comcast and Time Warner put on digital basic after they were given an ownership stake.

Comcast's Cohen agrees, saying, "Had the NFL given us access to Sunday Ticket, we would be carrying the NFL Network on a more widely distributed tier of service, comparable to what we would do with the Major League Baseball Extra Innings package."

NFL Network is supplementing its political campaign with a marketing campaign where all 32 teams work with distributors that carry the channel.

For example, the Cowboys launched a sweepstakes campaign with Cox in Oklahoma, with the winner getting to sit in Jerry Jones' box at a Cowboys game on NFL Network.

http://www.mlive.com/business/ambizdaily/bizjournals/index.ssf?/base/abd-3/119424840667260.xml

By Jay Posner
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

November 2, 2007
NFL Network begins its package of Thursday-Saturday games on Thanksgiving, but Time Warner Cable customers shouldn't hold out hope of seeing any of the eight games.

According to Sports Business Journal, with negotiations at a standstill, the network wants the Federal Communications Commission to allow an arbitrator to determine if and how cable operators should carry the channel.

The operators want to put the network on a sports tier, so only people who want to see it have to pay for it. The league thinks its channel should be on digital basic cable, so more people would have access to it.

The NFL's stance seems rather hypocritical, given this is the same league that won't allow cable (or Dish Network) subscribers access to “NFL Sunday Ticket.” Now all of a sudden cable matters?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20071102-9999-1s2medianote.html

I also am a die-hard NFL fan but I do not believe TW should give in to NFLN.
Just say Jerry Jones on CNBC. What kind of crap is he trying to sell.

My cable bill is already ridiculous. There is no reason subscribers should have to pay more to see a few more games. I don't know what the percentage of subscribers are football fans but the non-fans would really get screwed by a rate increase.

Hell, I think it all should be ppv. I could pick about 20 channels and trash the majority of the others.

TW just added the new Fox Business channel and I would like to watch it but it is tiered and would cost an extra $6.5 /month. I chose not to pay. My choice, my money.

You should pay for what you use.

Hang in there Time Warner!!!!!

I don't know what the percentage of subscribers are football fans[/B] but the non-fans would really get screwed by a rate increase.

Hell, I think it all should be ppv. I could pick about 20 channels and trash the majority of the others.

TW just added the new Fox Business channel and I would like to watch it but it is tiered and would cost an extra $6.5 /month. I chose not to pay. My choice, my money.

You should pay for what you use.

Hang in there Time Warner!!!!!
For arguements sake, There is 14-18 million fans watching regional and national games per weekand Per time slot. 1, 4, 8, on sunday and 9 on monday. TWC has a total of 15 mil subscribers through out the country with NY, southern Cal, ohio Texas, and the Carolina's having 85% of thaeir subscribers. That is some 12 million customers all in football markets which even at 25% VIEWERSHIP would only be 3 million of that 14-18 million that the networks command now. But then you have to factor in region ability to draw a crowd and the teams following. So the viewership will be very low for a specialized channel like the NFLnet Why to low for TWC to add a 70 cents per subscriber rate to our bills if they leave it on standard cable. But a tier would have a potential market of 3 million of the TWC universe. PPV maybe more if the games have a good team following. Texans vs Carolina wouldn't generate the viewership a game like dallas vs NY would.

OT response, Forget about pay for total view, that will never happen. The choices we get now is a neccessity, while our bills do go up yearly. they all do(cable & sat) because there is no regulation in price points. But if we would chose our channels profits will be a thing of the past CSR would be nonecxistant and technicians will hove a 2 month waiting list. Because of the lack of profits they not only loose profits they will loose valuble revenue. Revenue that ,ost of us take for granted, I know there are some areas that still have horrible service but here in NYC I have been blessed with almost non stop service for 20 tears. The blackout was the only time I didn't have service. Let's also not forget the stations that are kept alive because they are offered as part of standard fee. Do you think a network like FX would have succeeded if we had a choice when it 1st started, same can be said of Scifi and comedy central. These 2 channels only average 1-2 mil per night but is way down in the top 30 of channels. They would have closed up shop if ewe would have had choice. Don't even get me started on the discoveries and the Histories that would never had a chance to show us some very informative programming if wer all had a choice. Sure there is too much options which adds to our bills, but we were the ones asking for more in the first placce.

Yes, I understand total ppv is not possible but if they can tier some channels like TW did with Fox Business network and some of the special sports channels I really think NFLN should go to the sports tier.

NFLN is completely to blame for this problem. I can't believe that the politicians here in Texas are trying to force TW into giving in. I guess cable tv is a right under the constitution.

For arguements sake, There is 14-18 million fans watching regional and national games per weekand Per time slot. 1, 4, 8, on sunday and 9 on monday. TWC has a total of 15 mil subscribers through out the country with NY, southern Cal, ohio Texas, and the Carolina's having 85% of thaeir subscribers. That is some 12 million customers all in football markets which even at 25% VIEWERSHIP would only be 3 million of that 14-18 million that the networks command now. But then you have to factor in region ability to draw a crowd and the teams following. So the viewership will be very low for a specialized channel like the NFLnet Why to low for TWC to add a 70 cents per subscriber rate to our bills if they leave it on standard cable. But a tier would have a potential market of 3 million of the TWC universe. PPV maybe more if the games have a good team following. Texans vs Carolina wouldn't generate the viewership a game like dallas vs NY would.

OT response, Forget about pay for total view, that will never happen. The choices we get now is a neccessity, while our bills do go up yearly. they all do(cable & sat) because there is no regulation in price points. But if we would chose our channels profits will be a thing of the past CSR would be nonecxistant and technicians will hove a 2 month waiting list. Because of the lack of profits they not only loose profits they will loose valuble revenue. Revenue that ,ost of us take for granted, I know there are some areas that still have horrible service but here in NYC I have been blessed with almost non stop service for 20 tears. The blackout was the only time I didn't have service. Let's also not forget the stations that are kept alive because they are offered as part of standard fee. Do you think a network like FX would have succeeded if we had a choice when it 1st started, same can be said of Scifi and comedy central. These 2 channels only average 1-2 mil per night but is way down in the top 30 of channels. They would have closed up shop if ewe would have had choice. Don't even get me started on the discoveries and the Histories that would never had a chance to show us some very informative programming if wer all had a choice. Sure there is too much options which adds to our bills, but we were the ones asking for more in the first placce.I'm sure there's a point in here somewhere but I can't get past the spelling and grammar to figure it out. Take some time to proofread your writing before you hit post, man.

It might have been something about choosing your own channels (not going to happen).

The New York Times
November 14, 2007
By RICHARD SANDOMIR

Power is what the N.F.L. is about, and power is what it desperately lacks in its battles against cable operators who will not carry the NFL Network on basic or digital basic.

The league has never met an opponent that has played smash-mouth business the way Comcast, Time Warner and — to a lesser public extent — Charter and Cablevision have.

“For once we’re in the position of an independent programmer as opposed to a content-seller,” Frank Hawkins, the league’s senior vice president for business affairs, said yesterday. And the resistance has surprised him. Currently, about 8 million of the NFL Network’s 35 million subscribers come from cable; nearly all the rest are from satellite.

The situation is nothing like when the N.F.L. sells broadcast and cable rights, and networks roll over and pay what’s necessary to keep those games on their schedules.

CBS and NBC leaped off the Good Ship Tagliabue in the 1990s but returned with billions in hand, recognizing how wrong they were to have strayed.

But the NFL Network stalemate has the league running to legislators and regulators to compel cable operators to carry a channel whose lead attraction is eight games that start on Thanksgiving — games that before the 2006 season were seen Sundays on CBS or Fox (some nationally, some regionally) and ESPN (nationally). The scarcity of games lets cable operators say they carry enough: 248 on CBS, Fox, NBC and ESPN.

“The eight games are a very definitive attempt to say the NFL Network is here to stay,” Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, said in an interview last week. “It’s long term, and if it’s not eight games, it could be 16.”

Jones, who sued the league in 1995 and called it an “illegal cartel,” is the owner designated to expose the “truth against cable monopolies” (see more on the lobbying/advocacy site, iwantmynflnetwork.com). Jones’s interest is personal: His team plays twice on the channel this season, the first against Green Bay on Nov. 29.

“Millions of our fans just won’t get the games,” Jones said, including some in Austin and San Antonio where he has cast Time Warner as the villain. So he’s telling fans to cast off cable and embrace satellite options or new TV services from Verizon and AT&T.

But the campaign is weakened by the requirement that cable games on ESPN or the NFL Network be simulcast on local broadcast stations in the home markets of the teams that are playing. That reduces fan unrest if the primary audiences for each game are being served. But on Nov. 29, cheeseheads in Wisconsin, who live outside the Green Bay and Milwaukee home markets, will be cut off if they’re Charter or Time Warner customers.

Similar privations will be revisited, to some degree, with all NFL Network games.

The league began this inanity by seeking to build a billion-dollar TV asset and rejecting Comcast’s $400-million-a-year bid to put the eight games on Versus.

The league moved those games from entrenched networks to one that Recalcitrant Cable doesn’t find crucial enough to pay subscriber fees of 70 cents a month.

“Digital basic would work for us, but cable doesn’t want to go there,” Hawkins said, certain that the channel cannot be planted in the netherworld of digital sports tiers — a right that Comcast earned last spring in a court ruling that is under appeal.

While the league looks to others’ power to end the cable impasse, it has had its way with NFL Sunday Ticket, which lets about two million DirecTV subscribers watch all Sunday afternoon games played outside their markets on CBS and Fox.

Cable wants Sunday Ticket, which has made DirecTV’s its only home since 1994. But the league has had the power of knowing that it never needed cable to make Sunday Ticket a financial success; it receives $700 million a year from DirecTV.

But in 2002, cable thought it might get Sunday Ticket — even if its success hinged on the league’s negotiating around CBS and Fox’s veto rights. Those networks fear national audience erosion and local blackouts of their affiliates’ ads if Sunday Ticket comes to cable.

In a letter hand-delivered to Commissioner Paul Tagliabue on Dec. 11, 2002, he was informed that InDemand, the cable bidding consortium of Comcast, Time Warner and Cox, would pay $400 million to $500 million for Sunday Ticket whether it carried it alone or if DirecTV stayed on at the same price.

“We’re prepared to accept a license fee around those levels for a three- to five-year term,” wrote Stephen A. Brenner, the president of InDemand at the time.

But within hours of receiving the letter, the league announced a five-year renewal with DirecTV worth $2 billion. Why ignore cable and potentially billions of its cash?

InDemand’s offer arrived too late, Hawkins said in an interview in the summer.

“DirecTV’s deal was done five days before InDemand put in a bid that wasn’t a bid,” he said. Brenner sent the letter, he added, to create a record “that they had tried and failed to get Sunday Ticket.”

David Cohen, an executive vice president of Comcast, said that Hawkins’s response was not surprising. “They were never serious about making a deal with the cable industry,” he said recently, “and there was nothing we could do.”

The leverage that had been the N.F.L.’s in its perpetuation of Sunday Ticket’s exclusive deal on DirecTV has been reversed in the case of the NFL Network.

E-mail: sportsbiz@nytimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/sports/football/14sandomir.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=football&pagewanted=print

By Kirkendall Section: Time Warner vs. NFL Network
Posted on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 12:15:42 PM EDT

Take this perspective. When the NFL Network tells you that Time Warner is preventing you from seeing their games and 24x7 coverage, do they really think you're that stupid? It is, after all, their ridiculous assertion that taking the games away from all but 35 million households (of which only 1.6 million subscribe) is Time Warner's fault -- not the network that journeyed the games to Rivendale where no one else can find it, unless it wants to be found. The Big Ten Network is taking the same approach. And each time I'm told that both networks are being prevented from reaching their target audience, I laugh. If these networks weren't created, the games wouldn't be broadcasted on those channels. Simple as that. Don't take us for fools.

"Cable companies swim in a multi-billion dollar tower of gold coins." Both networks are just as greedy establishing channels to increase revenue for their respective product. If the cable companies are greedy, then the networks aren't? They're the victims? Furthermore, if Oprah created her own channel, would you be willing to pay for that general increase on your bill for basic? Or would you agree it should be on a digital tier that you would have to pay for to receive so the cost isn't spread out among all cable subscribers?

"Cable companies could absorb the costs and not charge anyone." The first question that has to be asked is do you run a business? Furthermore, take the Oprah hypothetical -- because obviously you'll be more willing to pay for the NFL Network if you were the CEO of cable company-A. The NFL is demanding between 50-75 cents per-subscriber while the Big Ten Network is asking for a full dollar per-subscriber. For comparison, ESPN charges $3.26 per customer -- "by far the highest rate of any U.S. basic cable channel."

Currently, the NFL receives $712.5 million per year from Fox to air NFC games. CBS is paying $622.5 million a year to air AFC games. Between the two networks, that's $8 billion that will paid through 2011. DirectTV, with exclusive rights to air the games of both networks, paid $3.5 billion for the NFL Sunday Ticket package. Now, we're up to $11.5 billion. NBC is paying $650 million per year on a contract that runs through 2012 for Sunday Night football. ESPN is paying $1.1 billion a year through 2014 for Monday Night football games. [Source: ESPN]

All television contracts added up, that's $3.785 billion per year that the NFL receives. Talk about greedy. The Cable companies pay service, InDemand, had offered a bid for NFL Sunday Ticket in 2002 before an agreement was reached for an extension between the NFL and DirectTV. The Cable Companies didn't care for exclusive rights, they just wanted to broadcast it. The cable companies missed the deadline and the league reupped with DirectTV.

Note: The Super Bowl produced $336 million in revenue.[Source: Forbes]

So what does the NFL suggest to you, the viewer that wants the NFL Network, but can't have it because their near $4 billion revenue on television contracts just isn't enough? They are urging you to cancel cable and get satellite. Yep. That's how low and panicked they are now. Jerry Jones threatens more games will be aired exclusively through the NFL Network. Even Congress is being asked to intervene. Mommy is being asked to settle another dispute.
"I'm talking to various markets and asking them to cancel out Comcast, cancel out Time Warner and go with the other people," Jones, who chairs the NFL owners' TV committee, said during a news conference here. "I think it will be very effective."

Representatives of Comcast and Time Warner Cable disagreed.

"We don't think any of our customers will disconnect just because Jerry Jones tells them to do so," says Maureen Huff, a spokeswoman for Time Warner Cable, which does not carry the channel. She also says most customers believe the NFL created problems for viewers by taking eight games from over-the-air TV and using them to build its channel.

Gregg Easterbrook notes the NFL's hypocrisy:
Reader Scott Larson of Grand Rapids, Mich., notes that after the NFL owners meeting last week, commissioner Roger Goodell complained, "We have some great games that are going to be on, and some [viewers] won't be able to see them because the cable operators are not distributing them." Reader Steve Lucianetti notes that after the same meeting -- called to help the owners strategize about the refusal of Time-Warner and Cablevision to carry the NFL Network -- Jerry Jones, owner of the Cowboys, complained the cable companies "depend on privileges at the government level, and they shouldn't use those privileges to keep fans from being able to see the NFL."

The doublespeak here is rich. The NFL restricts its magnificent Sunday Ticket product, which enables viewers to choose for themselves which game to watch, to the lucky few who get the satellite service DirecTV. Millions of homes cannot receive DirecTV for technical reasons or can pull in the signal only after expensive special installations. Frank Hawkins, the NFL's chief negotiator for television contracts, told me that when he lived in Virginia, his home could not receive DirecTV until he had a tall metal pole installed in his backyard. Yet although the NFL won't let anyone in the U.S. except DirecTV subscribers watch Sunday Ticket, the league is furious that Time-Warner and Cablevision won't buy the NFL Network and Comcast will buy the NFL Network for its premium sports tier only. The NFL wants NFLN on every basic cable system, which was the path to success for ESPN and CNN. A war of words has broken out, in which the NFL is denouncing the cable carriers in consumer-rights language while asking that Congress intervene to force the NFL Network onto basic cable. The cable carriers are firing back, accusing the NFL of all manner of perfidy. Meanwhile, 35 million households already get the NFL Network, while only 1.6 million get Sunday Ticket -- and the consumer's barriers to Sunday Ticket are much higher than the barriers to the NFL Network.

Easterbrook concludes:
Meanwhile, there's the cell phone factor. Some cable executives contend there is little point in chasing Sunday Ticket because all the people who want the service already have migrated to DirecTV. Sure -- all the people who want it at $250 a year, plus bundled charges, plus the hassle of installing and maintaining a satellite dish. If Sunday Ticket were $50 a year and came hassle-free through cable or any other hassle-free electronic pipeline that might evolve, instead of 1.6 million households getting Sunday Ticket, 25 million might sign up. Then consumer costs would be lower but business revenues higher -- $1.3 billion instead of $400 million in that example -- and what was once a luxury for the privileged few could be possessed affordably by almost anyone. Just like what happened with cell phones! Come on NFL, let us choose which game to watch. We'll pay, you'll be richer and you can stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth, demanding public access to the NFL Network while restricting public access to Sunday Ticket.

Note: Combined, Time Warner and Comcast reported $68.5 billion in revenue in 2006. Time Warner ($43.6 billion in 2006) Comcast ($24.9 billion in 2006).

So basically, with all that said, nothing has changed in the past three years.

http://www.cincyjungle.com/story/2007/11/16/121542/19

Newsday.com
Neil Best
November 16, 2007

This sums things up nicely: I tried to copy my notes and quotes on the NFL Network's feud with cable companies onto a new document before writing this column, but it didn't work.

The file was too big. (And my laptop is really, really old.)

Not since the Great A-Rod Opt-Out Debate of mid-fall 2007 - remember that wacky drama? - have so many talk radio words, barrels of ink and gigabytes of bandwidth been wasted on a squabble over money among zillionaires.

Alas, it's difficult to resist, what with the network less than a week from its first game of 2007 and less than two from Packers-Cowboys Nov. 29.

Explaining every nuance would require many pages. (See my blog at Newsday.com for 2,000 words of Jerry Jones' thoughts on the subject.) So this will be a gross oversimplification. Sorry.

Cable giants such as Comcast, Time Warner and Cablevision have resisted putting the network on basic plans, stunting its growth and limiting it to 35 million of the nation's 113 million or so homes.

Why? The official reason - articulated repeatedly by Comcast - is to save customers from paying for a channel they might not want, especially at a hefty 70 cents per subscriber per month.

That's a noble goal, except for the disingenuous embedded in it.

Comcast does carry the Golf Channel and Versus on its basic package, even for people not interested in golf or bull riding. Because . . . Comcast owns those channels!

So why are they also on Cablevision? Because basic cable is a quagmire of deal- making among various media companies that own channels and use their leverage to get them distributed.

When an independent such as YES or the NFL Network comes along, distribution wars ensue. When the MLB Channel, set to launch in 2009, handed out pieces of itself to DirecTV and cable outfits, voila, it won a spot on digital basic.

The NFL is far from innocent, of course, especially in how it has treated the cable industry regarding its popular "Sunday Ticket" service. Cable would love to have access to it, but it always has been a DirecTV exclusive.

Comcast is further annoyed with the NFL for keeping the Thursday/Saturday package for itself, passing up $400 million in rights fees the company would have paid to put it on Versus.

Cable would like to deploy the NFL Network to build up its lightly subscribed sports tiers (which cost viewers extra), but the NFL won't allow that, fearing weak distribution. (Comcast has it on a tier, but the league is disputing its right to do so.)

The NFL has turned up the heat, seeking arbitration, lobbying politicians and urging fans to cancel cable and switch to satellite or telephone company options.

Jones is the pit bull unleashed as the point man for the cause. He acknowledged over lunch last week that in the past he fought the league on several fronts. But on this topic he is fully on board.

Jones hinted he has friends in important places in his home state, where cable customers in Dallas-Fort Worth, but not those in San Antonio or Austin, will see the Packers game.

"I have large constituencies of state senators and state representatives that will hear in a big way when [Tony] Romo lines up against [Brett] Favre and the Green Bay Packers in that game," he said.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin is sympathetic to some arguments on the NFL's side, especially the part about companies doing favors for channels they own. But beyond that he is wary of the entire expanded basic system and supports greater choice and flexibility.

For example: The biggest losers in the current system are the customers who do not care at all about sports, by far the costliest type of programming. The NFL Network would only add to that.

Oy. SportsWatch's position remains unchanged:

Basic cable is a bloated eyesore in need of reinvention. But as long as this is the system, the NFL - at a reduced price, please - deserves a spot in it as much as or more than many of the oddball outlets currently in the channel lineup.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spwatch165463278nov16,0,3081605,print.column

Fans lose in football-cable clash
It's tough to cheer for either side as league-controlled networks fight to get space on cable lineup.
A weekly column by Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
November 19 2007: 1:14 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Michigan-Ohio State. Yankees-Red Sox. Duke-North Carolina. When bitter sports rivals backed by massive resources face off against one another, fans are typically the winners.

But not in the latest battle dominating sports pages - league-controlled sports networks vs. cable companies.

No longer satisfied with simply selling the rights to games for millions of dollars, the National Football League, Big Ten conference and other leagues are setting up their own networks that can bring them millions more in cable subscriber fees, even during the offseason. The leagues are building up entities that could eventually be worth billions.

But their plans for additional riches have run up against the power of the nation's major cable companies, which control what the majority of U.S. homes get to watch. The cable operators, facing increased competition from satellite and telephone companies, have so far said no to paying hefty subscriber fees to carry the new networks.

It's tough to find heroes in this battle. As the two sides present their cold-hearted business arguments as some form of sacrifice for the public good, you find yourself wanting to see both sides lose. And if they don't come to a deal, Washington could resolve the standoff for them and change regulations in a way that hurts a system that has been so lucrative for both the leagues and the cable industry.

Even if you're disgusted with both sides, it doesn't mean you shouldn't have sympathy for the fans, who just want to tune into the games they want.

For example, on Nov. 3, Ohio State played the University of Wisconsin in a game that was the month's most popular cable program in football-crazy Columbus and watched by more viewers than ESPN's Monday Night Football two days later. The college game managed to come out on top even though the state's largest cable operators won't carry the Big Ten Network that aired it, while just about every cable and satellite household gets ESPN.

An extra helping of football - a third NFL game - won't be available on Thanksgiving except in homes that carry the NFL Network, primarily those with television service from a satellite or phone company. And while that game - the mighty Indianapolis Colts vs. the woeful Atlanta Falcons - might be as appetizing as dry turkey, a week later those without the network will miss out on a matchup between the Dallas Cowboys and the Green Bay Packers, a game with playoff implications for both storied franchises.

And on Dec. 29, most fans will again need the NFL Network to be able to watch the New England Patriots vs the New York Giants. That's the night the Pats are expected to be trying to finish off the first undefeated regular season in 35 years, while the Giants could well be fighting for a playoff spot.

The cable operators concede that the networks are right about the popularity of the programming. What the two sides can't get past is the issue of where the networks should be placed in the cable lineup, and how much the cable operators should pay the networks for every household that gets the channel.

"There's a reason sports programming is expensive - people watch it," Mark Silverman, president of the Big Ten Network, said at a forum last week sponsored by the Sports Business Journal. "Obviously not everyone wants to watch sports, but not everyone has children, and they're getting the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon."

But the cable operators are right when they complain that the per-subscriber fees demanded by sports networks have gotten out of line with the size of the viewerships they attract.

Cox, the nation's No. 3 cable operator, estimates that 40 percent of the subscriber fees it pays goes to the national and regional sports networks it carries on basic cable, while those networks have well less than 10 percent of the total viewership. The cable operators also see the new sports networks as their best chance to anchor a so-called sports tiers bundle of networks, and entice fans to pay additional dollars on top of their basic bill.

"You can always make the case that there are avid fans. In sports that's easy to do," said Melinda Witmer, senior vice president and chief programming officer for Time Warner Cable (Charts), the nation's No. 2 cable operator which, like CNNMoney.com, is a unit of media conglomerate Time Warner (Charts, Fortune 500).

"If you don't believe that 10 percent of our communities will pay extra for this programming, then why are you requiring [all cable households] to pay for it?" Witmer asked at the forum.

Fair enough: The cable operators are saying that they have to find new sources of revenue to pay for these new sports networks, rather than raising rates on all their customers and risk losing those who aren't sports fans.

The disingenuous part of that position is exposed, however, when you look at how the cable companies are relatively quick to give access to new sports networks that they have ownership stakes in.

Case in point: No. 1 cable operator Comcast (Charts) gave basic cable access to the Golf Channel, which it owns, as well as to Versus, another one of its networks that is trying to become the next ESPN (since Comcast failed in its attempt to buy ESPN owner Walt Disney (Charts, Fortune 500)).

Unlike the Big Ten or NFL Networks, Versus got that coveted distribution even though it has little in the way of top-tier sports programming. Versus tried and failed to buy the games that are now on the NFL Network, essentially leaving it with only the NHL - and its cold-as-ice ratings - and the Tour de France, which got miniscule viewership even when Americans knew who was in the race.

Similarly, Time Warner Cable has denied a place to the Big Ten Network in Ohio, where Ohio State sports are king, but gave access to a new Ohio sports network in which it has a stake.

For those who despair that there's no way out in this fight, there is the case of the Baseball Channel.

Major League Baseball's new 24/7 offering is set to go on the air in 2009 with about 47 million households, including the majority of cable homes with digital service. That's more than a league-controlled network has ever had, no matter how long it's been on the air.

The way MLB won what it wanted was by using Extra Innings, its subscription package of out-of-market games, as leverage with the cable companies. The league also reached an agreement to have cable and satellite take an ownership stake its new network.

The NFL probably would have been able to win the same kind of distribution for the NFL Network if it had played the same cards, Time Warner Cable'sWitmer said after the forum. Instead, the NFL wanted to keep complete ownership of the network, as well continue collecting the $3.5 billion it gets from DirecTV (Charts, Fortune 500) for an exclusive deal for its own out-of-market package, Sunday Ticket.

"It might have shifted its overall price value equation," she said. "DirecTV has paid an enormous premium for the exclusivity of that product. We're hoping very much the Baseball Channel will be terrific, but no question, it was part and parcel of the Extra Innings package."

But the NFL and Big Ten conference, which are both used to getting their way in TV negotiations, aren't ready to give up even a minority stake in their potentially lucrative networks to get the distribution they want, or in the case of the NFL, give up the extra hundreds of millions it gets for granting exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket DirecTV.

Once again, this just shows that this is a dispute over price, not principal.

So how does this all play out? The next stop could well be in Washington. The NFL is poised to use its considerable lobbying might to seeks changes in the rules for how cable is regulated, forcing operators to arbitrate disputes over how much a cable company should pay for a network and how it should be offered.

"We need some sort of fair negotiation mechanism to get our channel to the fans who want it," said Seth Palansky, spokesman for the NFL Network. "We're just suggesting that the system is broken when, after four years, a fair negotiation can't take place because you haven't give them rights to the product on the terms they wanted or an ownership stake."

But the prospect of regulatory changes have other networks scared. They worry it could open the door for so-called a la carte cable lineups, where customers only pay for the networks they want, rather than a bundle of dozens or hundreds of offerings they now get. That in turn could choke off much of the money that companies like Disney, regional sports networks and even the big broadcast networks like CBS (Charts, Fortune 500) could pay in rights fees.

"There is one thing that all of us up here agree on. We don't view some form of governmental intervention as the best way to get to a deal," said Bob Thompson, president of Fox Sports Networks, which has an interest in the Big Ten Network, during the recent forum. "We're all in the business of doing deals. We've been through these skirmishes before, and we'll go through them again. And eventually we'll all figure something out that works for everybody."

He better be right. Otherwise it'll be the fans who keep losing from this bitter rivalry, one of the few in sports that makes you want to cheer against both sides. To top of page
Baseball close to catching football as top dollar sport

Are you ready for more football?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/19/commentary/sportsbiz/?postversion=2007111913