Don't have any comments that haven't been made over and over, but thought this topic deserved it's own thread. Have at it !!!!

Time Warner, NFL Network Butt Heads

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

By Mike Reynolds 7/28/2006 5:15:00 PM

Time Warner Cable and the NFL Network are strapping on their respective helmets in anticipation of a nasty carriage dispute.

The operator may punt the network away from systems owned by Adelphia Communications that it is acquiring, including those in such National Football League markets as Buffalo, N.Y.; Cleveland; and Dallas.

In response, the network -- which added an eight-game, late-season primetime package -- is preparing a multimillion-dollar ad campaign to run throughout the pro football season if necessary against Time Warner, Cablevision Systems, Bright House Networks and other cable operators that are not carrying the 41 million-subscriber channel.

Time Warner is considering dropping NFL Network from systems in Buffalo, Cleveland, Los Angeles, the Carolinas and Maine that are currently carrying the service as early as Aug. 1, following the expected July 31 closing of Time Warner Inc.’s and Comcast’s purchase of Adelphia, according to sources at both parties.

Time Warner, which doesn't have a corporate deal with the network, placed ads in newspapers within those Adelphia markets Wednesday, alerting subscribers that NFL Network could be one of several networks either added or dropped with the ownership change.

Time Warner officials said no decisions have been made regarding NFL Network and the MSO remains in “active discussions” with the network to secure a carriage deal.

Meanwhile, NFL Network will run TV, radio and print ads -- as early as this coming week -- identifying operators that are currently not carrying the service. The network was expected to run ads this past Sunday in newspapers reaching NFL markets, including Green Bay, Wis. (Time Warner), and Tampa, Fla. (Bright House).

NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky said the service is prepared to execute a multimedia marketing blitz for several months, if necessary, adding, “We’re prepared to go as long as it takes, but we hope it’s only a one-week period.”

The ads will not target MSOs that carry the network but have yet to sign up for its new rate card, which includes the $300 million eight-game package, plus replays of select Sunday contests.

Thus far, satellite services EchoStar Communications and DirecTV -- as well as a number of small and midsized operators -- have come off the bench to sign the new deals. Distributors said the network’s new licensing fees range between 50-75 cents per month, per subscriber -- a substantial increase over its previous rate card calling for between 20-25 cents.

Multichannel News 7/28/06

July 25, 2006
Section: Sports
Page: C1
Column:Valley watch



Valley Watch: Working for a better Coachella Valley
Bill Byron
Staff
The Desert Sun

Why you won't by watching NFL Network on Time Warner Cable

There's a new sporting event to add to the list of sports we can't watch on our local cable stations: the NFL.

Beginning this Thanksgiving, the NFL Network will show live NFL games every week until the end of the season, but any valley resident who has Time Warner Cable won't be able to see them.

The problem - as usual - is cash. Time Warner is negotiating with the NFL on a national level to try to get the NFL Network. But they're trying not to pay too much for it to avoid raising rates for viewers who never watch the sport.

"We want to include the NFL Network in one of our sports (packages); and they want to be included in our most basic service," Ernie Villicana, Time Warner Vice President of Marketing for the Desert Cities Division said last week. "Our hope is that our two organizations will come to terms by the time that these regular season games air this season - but it might be a little too early to tell."

At least with this sporting blight, there is an alternative. Fans can buy DirecTV, the satellite system that has an NFL package, allowing you to watch all NFL games. But that special NFL package is pretty expensive ($280) and you lose the ability to watch local network stations.

I asked Villicana if he was worried about losing customers to DirecTV if Time Warner doesn't get its act together:

"There's some concern, but the vast majority of the hard-core NFL customers probably left us years ago. ... Will there be losses? Probably. Will they be large? Probably not."

I guess us football fans just aren't that important anymore.

The news from the NFL Network isn't any better.

"We don't like the idea of a cable company charging whatever they want to get fans to pay a bunch extra to get our channel," NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky said Monday. "They happily sell you 10 porno channels and have no restrictions there, but we think a channel dedicated to the most popular sport in the country is worth viewing by all consumers ... their profits are in pornography, not pigskin."

I asked Palansky flat out: If he was a betting man, would he bet on a deal getting hammered out by Turkey Day.

He said "No."

"We've been trying to negotiate with them for the past 21/2 years. We have a deal with Comcast, DirecTV, Dish Network and 200 other cable companies," he said. "Everyone else has put us on their expanded basic package."

It doesn't sound promising, but maybe a grass-roots campaign by you readers can convince these two corporations to get onto the same page.

The best Time Warner Cable number to call is 674-5377. The NFL Network suggested calling the NFL's main office in Manhattan at: (212) 450-2000 but the NFL Network number is (310) 840-4635, if you want to bug them too.

While I had him on the phone, I asked Villicana about the lack of Angels games in the Coachella Valley (and judging by the e-mails and phone calls, a few readers noticed we were blacked out twice last week.) Again, he downplayed the importance of the sports fan.

"We would have to pass the cost through to almost 150,000 customers and only about 10 to 15 percent watch Angels' games," he said. "It wouldn't be fair to the other 70 percent of our customers."

That math's a little fuzzy, but I think we get the idea - it ain't happening.

I guess we'll just have to jump into a time machine and listen to those 20 or so remaining blacked out games on the radio.

Bill Byron is a Desert Sun reporter who covers Cathedral City and valley consumer issues.

Title revised to include other cablecos involved.

are you talking about NFL network or NFL HD network? if you get one, does that mean you get the other too? on our cable system, we get NFL network but no NFL HD... well i cant tell because i dont have the digital cable package but from my experience everything HD has a D in the channel name.

Does anyone really think the NFL won't win this one?

In addition to its exclusive end of season (HD) package of games, the NFL Network has been quietly picking up rights to some bowl games -- though admittedly minor for now.

But as it is, the ad campaigns of DirecTV, Dish, FiOS and the other telcos will be brutal when games appear on the NFL Network and some cable subs can't see them.

There also is the new FCC requirement that Comcast and Time Warner submit to binding arbitration is the case of RSN coverage in the future. I would anticipate the NFL will ask the FCC to enlarge that requirement to include its programming.

And politically, when the NFL is already deriding the cable companies for charging for porn while not adding the NFL Network, how can the FCC fail to respond positively?

Does anyone really think the NFL won't win this one?

In addition to its exclusive end of season (HD) package of games, the NFL Network has been quietly picking up rights to some bowl games -- though admittedly minor for now.

But as it is, the ad campaigns of DirecTV, Dish, FiOS and the other telcos will be brutal when games appear on the NFL Network and some cable subs can't see them.

There also is the new FCC requirement that Comcast and Time Warner submit to binding arbitration is the case of RSN coverage in the future. I would anticipate the NFL will ask the FCC to enlarge that requirement to include its programming.

And politically, when the NFL is already deriding the cable companies for charging for porn while not adding the NFL Network, how can the FCC fail to respond positively?

The NFL knows that if they are on a sports tier, their reach will be less than 25% during the season, and much less off season. They know that the tier can't be priced at retail for over say $5.95/month and still expect to reach 25%.

Given that, assuming that NFL was bundled with a few other sports nets on that tier, their share of the revenue might be in the buck and a quarter a month range, much less than getting 75 cents from every household 12 months a year.

I know everybody loves football, but I still contended that NFL is being the jerk here. As for the analogy with porno, that IS available strictly as an optional service. Their argument makes no sense at all.

Stick to your guns TWC.

...

Stick to your guns TWC.

Given your argument, and realizing that fully 70%+ of the nation's viewers never watch ESPN, why shouldn't TWC put the ESPN channels on a tier, too?

That would benefit the overwhelming majority of viewers who don't want to pay the $2.96 a month for ESPN and the $2.00 a month for ESPN2 and a fe more nickels a month for ESPN News and ESPN Classic (not even mentioning the TWC markup of those charges.) Tha could save about two-thirds of TWC subscribers well over $6 a month.

And TWC "sticking by its guns" never seems to include knocking Time Warner cable channels off its systems, does it?

And "sticking ot its guns" so far has enabled TWC to get an average monthly revenue per subscriber (at the end of the 1st Q of 2006) of $91.33. (Comcast is $86.78 and Adelphia -- which apparently will have the NFL Network dropped from its systems when TW takes over -- is $77.79)

(Source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6357493.html?display=Top+Stories )

Not counting the HBO and Cinemax pay services, here are the TW basic cable channels:

TNT
CNN
CNN Headline News
CNN International
Boomerang
Cartoon Network
Turner Classic Movies

Do you honestly believe that there is more interest in each of these channels than in the NFL Network?

At least with this sporting blight, there is an alternative. Fans can buy DirecTV, the satellite system that has an NFL package, allowing you to watch all NFL games. But that special NFL package is pretty expensive ($280) and you lose the ability to watch local network stations.


And of course this is completly wrong. You don't need the NFL package to get the NFL Network, just Total Choice.

And if for some reason the locals in that area aren't on DirecTV there is always an antenna or TWC's "broadcast basic" which they must offer for around $10 a month whether they admit it or not.

Given your argument, and realizing that fully 70%+ of the nation's viewers never watch ESPN, why shouldn't TWC put the ESPN channels on a tier, too?

That would benefit the overwhelming majority of viewers who don't want to pay the $2.60 a month for ESPN and the $2.00 a month for ESPN2 and the $0.70 a month for ESPN News and another $0.50 for ESPN Classic (not even mentioning the TWC markup of those charges.) Tha could save about two-thirds of TWC subscribers well over $6 a month.

And TWC "sticking by its guns" never seems to include knocking Time Warner cable channels off its systems, does it?

And "sticking ot its guns" so far has enabled TWC to get an average monthly revenue per subscriber (at the end of the 1st Q of 2006) of $91.33. (Comcast is $86.78 and Adelphia -- which apparently will have the NFL Network dropped from its systems when TW takes over -- is $77.79)

(Source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6357493.html?display=Top+Stories )

Not counting the HBO and Cinemax pay services, here are the TW basic cable channels:

TNT
CNN
CNN Headline News
CNN International
Boomerang
Cartoon Network
Turner Classic Movies

Do you honestly believe that there is more interest in each of these channels than in the NFL Network?

I would LOVE to have ESPN moved to a tier. Time Warner would love to move ESPN to a tier. Mickey Mouse however would not.

These TW channels are priced at a rate consistant with being in a basic tier. Once a channel breaches 50 cent per subscriber per month, I feel cable operators should be allowed to tier those services. Under those conditions, I feel the supplier is entitled to a "penalty" rate.

It would help keep the rates down both from the supplier and to the consumer, while allowing those who really want the higher priced services to opt for them in a tier.

What if HBO changed strategies and demanded to be put on basic cable at the end of it's current contracts. They could. What should a cable operator do if they did? Drop them? Increase everyone's rates? Eat the cost? Not everybody wants HBO. Some people really really do. And the cable operator is entitled to be treated fairly.

The problem again is that NFL and ESPN simply DO NOT ALLOW tiering of their services, which really isn't fair to anyone.

Both parties have done their math.

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

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

Sounds like a stand-off.

This sounds like a perfect argument for a la carte. Seems a little funny that TWC argues that they want to save people money by not having a channel people don't want but don't allow the consumer to do it themselves.

Please remember that this isn't about protecting people it's about money. Who gets more is the only argument.

This sounds like a perfect argument for a la carte. Seems a little funny that TWC argues that they want to save people money by not having a channel people don't want but don't allow the consumer to do it themselves.

Please remember that this isn't about protecting people it's about money. Who gets more is the only argument.

Time Warner is making a mistake in the Dallas area. New arrival Verizon FiOS is going the opposite direction - moving NFLN to it's most popular package on August 1st. (previously it has been part of the sports package you can buy for an extra 6 bucks a month)

Verizon has already been taking a lot of customers away from Comcast. This move with NFLN might have the tendency to make that problem worse for Time Warner.

I wish every cable company would boycott NFL Network. I absolutely never watch pro football. Why the hell should I have to pay every month so a few die-hards can watch a couple of out-of-market games? In addition, if they give in on this one, don't think for a second that in a few years, the NFL won't start local RSNs like baseball teams to where you'll have to pay just to see your local team!

Sports tier or nothing - that's what I say.

I wish every cable company would boycott NFL Network. I absolutely never watch pro football. Why the hell should I have to pay every month so a few die-hards can watch a couple of out-of-market games? In addition, if they give in on this one, don't think for a second that in a few years, the NFL won't start local RSNs like baseball teams to where you'll have to pay just to see your local team!

Sports tier or nothing - that's what I say.

It's that same old tired arguement. I don't ever watch Lifetime, Lifetime movies, Bravo and about 50 other channels. They should be moved out to it's own tier for the few die-hards that watch those channels!! ;)

Time Warner is making a mistake in the Dallas area. New arrival Verizon FiOS is going the opposite direction - moving NFLN to it's most popular package on August 1st. (previously it has been part of the sports package you can buy for an extra 6 bucks a month)

Verizon has already been taking a lot of customers away from Comcast. This move with NFLN might have the tendency to make that problem worse for Time Warner.

No doubt Verizon was forced to move NFL Network to basic. The reason why NFLN can't back down from TWC and others is that they would probably get sued by all the cable operators who have already negociated a contract with language indicating the channel is a manditory basic service.

Messy...

It's that same old tired arguement. I don't ever watch Lifetime, Lifetime movies, Bravo and about 50 other channels. They should be moved out to it's own tier for the few die-hards that watch those channels!! ;)

If a service decides that they want to be placed on an entry level tier, they have to be sensitive on how the price the product to the cable operator. If Lifetime wanted what NFLN wants, they'd quickly lose carriage and go out of business. They got dumped by Dish Network for awhile for that very reason.

NFLN wants a premium rate to be in a basic package. They've just tripled they're rates. They cut sweetheart deals with the satellite guys first in order to hold the cable guys ransom. The whole thing stinks whether you like football or not.

NFLN knows that once they're on, they can raise they're rates at every contract renewal without impunity.

Consider this:

What if NFL Networks early on signed 10 year contracts with the satellite guys at 10 cents per sub per month with no rate increases during the course of the contract.

What if NFL Networks went to the cable industry and made the same offer, if they launched NFL Networks across they're entire footprint at launch, and many systems were already more or less technically and contractually "full".

What if those cable operators said "pass for now", but now are being asked to pay more than five times what they're competators pay. Is that a fair playing field?

There are things we don't know about the why's and the wherefore's, but rest assured TWC et al are just trying to escape the negotiating table with their belts buckled and their pride intact.

Given your argument, and realizing that fully 70%+ of the nation's viewers never watch ESPN, why shouldn't TWC put the ESPN channels on a tier, too?

That would benefit the overwhelming majority of viewers who don't want to pay the $2.60 a month for ESPN and the $2.00 a month for ESPN2 and the $0.70 a month for ESPN News and another $0.50 for ESPN Classic (not even mentioning the TWC markup of those charges.) Tha could save about two-thirds of TWC subscribers well over $6 a month.

And TWC "sticking by its guns" never seems to include knocking Time Warner cable channels off its systems, does it?

And "sticking ot its guns" so far has enabled TWC to get an average monthly revenue per subscriber (at the end of the 1st Q of 2006) of $91.33. (Comcast is $86.78 and Adelphia -- which apparently will have the NFL Network dropped from its systems when TW takes over -- is $77.79)

(Source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6357493.html?display=Top+Stories )

Not counting the HBO and Cinemax pay services, here are the TW basic cable channels:

TNT
CNN
CNN Headline News
CNN International
Boomerang
Cartoon Network
Turner Classic Movies

Do you honestly believe that there is more interest in each of these channels than in the NFL Network?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I envision 1 of 2 possible scenarios:

1. TWC eventually signs and delivers the NFL Network. Whether the NFL's marketing tactics influences that will be a matter of opinion.

2. Dressler (fred.dressler@twcable.com ... e-mail him relentlessly, please) and the other suits at TWC dig in their heals and continue with their current stance that the NFL is charging too much and resisting the NFL's insistance on a basic digital channel position (vs. being relagated to a sports tier). In fact, the upcoming marketing blitz may even embolden him to refuse a carriage agreement ... all the while, not caring about the effect on subscriber count.

I know, I know ... last year TWC saw a marked increase in total subscriber count. And, this year, they will as well as they absorb much of Adelphia. However, those increases are not by choice, as we know. They are customers who default to the local franchised cable system. Now that TWC is being exposed on a national forum, lets see how many subscribers get their head out of the sand, and act accordingly.

BTW ... Buffalo Adelphia customers (soon-to-be NFL Network-less) are extremely pissed that TWC will immediately pull the NFL Network, ESPN2HD, ESPNU, etc. when they make the switch (within 30 days). The local papers have written articles ... Buffalo is a football-crazy, very hearty place. I don't think they'll sit back and take it like most of TWC subs after beating our heads against the walls.

Should be interesting.

I wish every cable company would boycott NFL Network. I absolutely never watch pro football. Why the hell should I have to pay every month so a few die-hards can watch a couple of out-of-market games? In addition, if they give in on this one, don't think for a second that in a few years, the NFL won't start local RSNs like baseball teams to where you'll have to pay just to see your local team!

Sports tier or nothing - that's what I say.

Why the hell should I have to pay for:

12 shopping networks
Multiple religious channels
An ever-expanding line-up of Spanish-only channels
Yada, yada, yada

Just because you hate football, doesn't mean that the rest of us do. Your argument is senseless.

Why the hell should I have to pay for:

12 shopping networks
Multiple religious channels
An ever-expanding line-up of Spanish-only channels
Yada, yada, yada

Just because you hate football, doesn't mean that the rest of us do. Your argument is senseless.

All of the channels you mention are ABSOLUTELY FREE to the cable operator, and other than wasting some "shelf space", have no impact on your service.

The NFLN situation is not really a shelf space issue anyway. It's a rate card issue, and being forced to put the channel on basic issue.

Why the hell should I have to pay for:

12 shopping networks.
In reality, the shopping channels pay for carriage, so they help keep your rates down. That is why there are so !@#$ many of them.

In reality, the shopping channels pay for carriage, so they help keep your rates down. That is why there are so !@#$ many of them.

In fact, we never booked income from the shopping channels, we just took the checks and had a quarterly Friday night kegger for the employees.

But then that was Texas in the 1980's. Could never happen today. :mad: :mad: :mad:

If the revenue per sub numbers here are correct, then TWC is not doing this for the consumer. However, the NFL is not, either. They have moved games from the networks, which are freely available to all, to a cable channel. Now, they are blaming cable operators for not jumping at their offering of the "most popular" sport. By bringing up porn in this conversation, they have not only made in nonsensical comparison, but IMO have demonstrated little class.

I understand that there will be more national games available, but what does everyone think Thursday & Saturday cable numbers for regular season NFL games will be? I know die-hard NLF fans that don't watch the 4 currently available Sunday/Monday games. I only bring this up because the creation/movement of these games to/for NFL Network has just created another high cost basic cable channel. I would gladly pay a dollar a month for it (or maybe $3), but I can understand why non sports fans would find this objectionable.

If the revenue per sub numbers here are correct, then TWC is not doing this for the consumer. However, the NFL is not, either. They have moved games from the networks, which are freely available to all, to a cable channel. Now, they are blaming cable operators for not jumping at their offering of the "most popular" sport. By bringing up porn in this conversation, they have not only made in nonsensical comparison, but IMO have demonstrated little class.

I understand that there will be more national games available, but what does everyone think Thursday & Saturday cable numbers for regular season NFL games will be? I know die-hard NLF fans that don't watch the 4 currently available Sunday/Monday games. I only bring this up because the creation/movement of these games to/for NFL Network has just created another high cost basic cable channel. I would gladly pay a dollar a month for it (or maybe $3), but I can understand why non sports fans would find this objectionable.

You're being logical and rational here. Be careful. ;) ;) ;)

And I agree that the NFL spokesman's comments underline who the bad guy really is.

Just because you hate football, doesn't mean that the rest of us do. Your argument is senseless.

It's only senseless if the complaint is narrowed only to those channels that someone doesn't like. If you feel that all channels should be priced and offered individually, then it makes perfect sense.

Personally, I hope the all the cablecos except Cablevision get stuck with a massive fee or headache over this. They all aggressively opposed a la carte or eliminating bundling and I see very little difference between a company forcing carriage of channels and/or tier placement by leveraging a channel that is in demand - and the NFL leveraging the demand for its games to force carriage of their network.

ESPN did the same thing by leveraging their NFL games and look where we are now. The NFL could expand the very same way - but that's what the cablecos (and D*) fought for - so that's exactly what they deserve.

The reason TWC wants NFL Network in the sports tier isnt because they dont want to raise basic cable rates....they want more people subscribing to that sports tier, as well as a good excuse to raise the price of it. Add the NFL Network and, even better, ESPNU, and they can probably double the price of the sports tier as well as double the subscribers. So go ahead and say "stick to your guns TWC", but they arent defending you, they are just looking for more money.

Also, if TWC feels that not everyone cares about football so they shouldnt have to pay for it, why the hell do I get the Golf Channel on standard basic?

Not to get off topic, but I wish we could pay for each channel individualy. Out of about 200 channels I probably only watch about 12 of them.

I'd be in for less than 12, but I'm sorry to say that the cost of those 12 a la carte, if they were not subsidized by all subscribers, would probably be the same or more than I'm paying for cable right now. And my willingness to pay for NFL Network during the season would do nothing to help my bottom line.

NFL Network Sues Time Warner To Stay On Systems
Monday, July 31, 2006 02:12 PM - WBEN Newsroom

Buffalo, NY (WBEN) - When the clock strikes midnight, the NFL Network will be off local cable systems. Time Warner will take over the Adelphia systems at that time. The NFL Network now is suing to keep the network on Time Warner.

NFL Network spokesman Seth Polansky says the lawsuit is a last ditch effort, because Time Warner will not even answer calls from the network trying to plead its case.

http://www.wben.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=05474

Time Warner's Response to NFL Network:

http://www.nflgetreal.com/

NFL Net, Time Warner spar as season nears


By JOHN OURAND
Staff writer
Sports Business Journal

Published July 31, 2006 : Page 01
The tension of three years of fruitless talks between the NFL Network and Time Warner Cable is set to escalate this week, just as the nation’s second-largest cable operator finally gains control of the Adelphia systems it purchased with Comcast.



The dispute could lead Time Warner to dumping the network from its newly acquired systems as early as this week in Los Angeles and such strong NFL markets as Cleveland and Buffalo. It also could fuel a migration of NFL fans from cable to satellite or telecommunications operators after an aggressive marketing campaign NFL Network was set to launch Sunday targeting cable operators that aren’t carrying the channel on expanded basic. Network officials wouldn’t specify which cable operators are being targeted, other than Time Warner. They did say they would run the campaign in St. Louis, home to Charter Communications, and Tampa, home to Bright House Networks.

The league-owned network will spend tens of millions of dollars on the campaign, which is hitting just as NFL Network and Time Warner enter last-minute discussions to keep the network on those Adelphia systems. The talks are significant, since Adelphia has been the only top 10 cable operator to give NFL Network carriage on an expanded basic analog tier. Time Warner Cable does not carry the service on any of its tiers and posted a notice in several local newspapers, including in Cleveland, alerting Adelphia subscribers that the NFL Network could be dropped as early as this week.

As of Aug. 1, Time Warner will gain 3.5 million subscriptions from the Adelphia transaction and from system swaps with Comcast.

“We want to reach a long-term agreement with NFL Network,” Time Warner Cable spokesman Keith Cocozza said. “If we can’t reach a long-term deal, we are hoping to get an interim arrangement to keep the network on the Adelphia systems.”

Time Warner Cable was clearly aggravated by NFL Network’s marketing plans. One ad planned for a Texas market pictures a Dallas Cowboys fan with the message: “Don’t let Time Warner ruin your football season. Call and demand NFL Network now.”

“I don’t see how running negative ads against Time Warner Cable while we’re still in discussions makes sense,” Cocozza said.

For its part, the NFL Network expressed frustration at the slow pace of the talks and is hoping the campaign will force cable operators to begin carrying the channel on expanded basic.

“We’ve been in discussions with them for three years,” said network spokesman Seth Palansky. “How long do discussions need to go before they work? The market’s already been set.”

Network executives want the campaign to educate consumers about where they can find the network — that being on cable’s competitors. So far, the channel has cut deals with DirecTV, EchoStar, Verizon and AT&T. NFL Network is available in about 41 million homes, network officials say. That is much more than other league-owned networks, but it’s below the network’s goals, which are more along the lines of ESPN’s 91 million homes.

NFL Network’s new selling point this year is obviously live games, with the late-season Thursday and Saturday night package starting on Thanksgiving.

“We want to make sure that consumers know that we will have these games in their markets, even if their cable provider doesn’t,” said Jola Thun, vice president of affiliate marketing for NFL Network.

While carriage disputes like this are relatively common, this one has several implications for cable operators, which are trying to keep their programming costs in line. Cable operators have balked at NFL Network’s asking price, which is between 85 cents and 95 cents a month per subscriber for expanded basic carriage, which is where the network wants to be. Cable operators that already carry the channel on a digital tier will have to pay a surcharge of about $2 a month per subscriber, on top of the 25 cent to 35 cent license fee they are already paying, to have access to the eight regular season games, cable sources said. The NFL Network will black out the games for operators that don’t pay the surcharge or move the network to expanded basic.

NFL Network executives are counting on public interest in those eight games to force cable operators into a deal.

“Live prime-time games add a lot of value to the network,” Thun said.

MSOs don’t think they’ll lose a lot of viewers if they hold out, especially since the regular-season games will be broadcast locally in the home markets. Most cable executives seem content to wait until those regular-season games start.

That’s one of the goals of this week’s marketing campaign, which is trying to get cable operators to not wait until Thanksgiving to make a deal. NFL Network officials warn that operators that wait will have to pay more for the network than operators who cut a deal in the preseason. Network officials did not disclose what that cost would be.

The campaign this week targets the country’s strongest football markets, such as Green Bay, Dallas and Tampa. Ads will run in local print publications, radio and TV, regional buys from Sports Illustrated and USA Today and online.

“We are confident that people want to see live, prime-time games,” Thun said. “They should know that their local cable provider won’t be carrying them.”

Time Warner's Response to NFL Network:

http://www.nflgetreal.com/

Not a very effective marketing strategy. The only people that will be motivated to take action by visiting the website and contacting the NFL aren't likely to be of the viewpoint that "we want the NFL on a separate sports tier" - they are the ones that will assume that the NFL should be part of the most basic package.

They'd have better results trying to rally NFL fans to contact the NFL saying they don't want to pay an extra fee for a handful of games. Focus on the first 2 sections and keep the dispute about unfair pricing, not tiering.

So if I were a cable operator who'd been carrying NFL Network from the git go paying 25 to 35 cents, and now they want a surcharge of $2.00/month/12 months ($24/year) for 8 games that may be of no real consequnce, or move it to basic at 95 cents/month/sub, I'd be pissed.

NFL Network is WAY out of line. They're essentially "tiering" their channel, with the 8 games, or without the eight games, while not allowing TWC the option of tiering.

Can you say HYPOCRITE ????

The problem is all TW's: a section of the customers for which they're shelling out billion of dollars was until recently looking forward to having the NFLN and its schedule of eight additional games (in HD, no less) for the upcoming regular season.

Now, I have no doubt that the NFLN is being ruthless about the deal it's trying to finagle out of TWC. But the fact is people aren't going to stop watching football because the league is playing hardball with a cable company. Whereas some people will opt for a dish because they're not getting what they want and what they expected. And those who care about football and remain with TWC - well, let's just say TWC is getting off on the wrong foot with those customers.

Personally, I'm waiting to get a call back from a TWC representative, and am fully prepared to make a call to Dish Network afterward if the conversation goes as I anticipate it will. Transitioning will be a pain in the ass, yes. But for essentially the same monthly price, I'll be getting the NFL Network, some Voom channels I covet (HD-Lite or not) and a quality HD-DVR. And the fact that I opted for the alternative will give me peace of mind. It'll be worth it.

The problem is all TW's: a section of the customers for which they're shelling out billion of dollars was until recently looking forward to having the NFLN and its schedule of eight additional games (in HD, no less) for the upcoming regular season.

Now, I have no doubt that the NFLN is being ruthless about the deal it's trying to finagle out of TWC. But the fact is people aren't going to stop watching football because the league is playing hardball with a cable company. Whereas some people will opt for a dish because they're not getting what they want and what they expected. And those who care about football and remain with TWC - well, let's just say TWC is getting off on the wrong foot with those customers.

Personally, I'm waiting to get a call back from a TWC representative, and am fully prepared to make a call to Dish Network afterward if the conversation goes as I anticipate it will. Transitioning will be a pain in the ass, yes. But for essentially the same monthly price, I'll be getting the NFL Network, some Voom channels I covet (HD-Lite or not) and a quality HD-DVR. And the fact that I opted for the alternative will give me peace of mind. It'll be worth it.

As much as I side with the cable side of the argument, I applaud you for being proactive and voting with your wallet, rather than being one of the incessant whiners. It is people like yourself that will force TWC to add NFLN, not the people who merely complain but don't switch.

Sunday Newsday (NY/Long Island) had a 1/5 page ad in the sports section with a picture of Michael Strahan on one side and the 10 or so "NFL network only" games across from him (as I recall the Giants play the last "NFL Net only" game this year).
It said something like "see what you're missing?" "Call Cablevision and tell them you want the NFL Network".
The lines have been drawn........

NFL Asks FCC To Reinstate TW Carriage
By Ben Grossman Broadcasting & Cable 8/1/2006
(John Eggerton contributed to this report)

The National Football League called the next play in its ongoing battle with Time Warner Cable, filing a petition with the FCC to direct Time Warner to restore the NFL Network to the basic cable package on the Adelphia systems that Time Warner took over as of today (Aug. 1).

The petition claims that Time Warner violated Section 76.1603(b) "of the Commission’s rules requiring adequate notice to subscribers before dropping a cable channel from cable systems Time Warner recently acquired from Adelphia Communications and Comcast Corporation." That period of adequate notice is 30 days, according to the Commission’s rules.

"As a result of Time Warner quietly and suddenly pulling our NFL Network channel off cable systems around the country last night at midnight, we were left with no alternative under FCC rules but to file this injunction," said the league in a statement.

"NFL fans who called us today said they were not given a fair chance on the eve of the NFL season to have their voice heard on this decision by Time Warner. We owe it to our fans to help them fight for their rights. Those rights were abruptly and unfairly taken from them late last night."

An NFL spokesperson says the two sides are currently not in negotiations, and no talks are planned.

Systems that lost the NFL Network as of today included football hotbeds such as Kansas City, Cleveland and Dallas.

Calling the filing "frivolous," "Time Warner Cable spokesman Mark Harrad said: "We think we are in full compliance with the FCC's notification rules. The rule is 30 days notice unless the change is beyond your control," Harrad said. "The NFL Network made it apparent to us that they would not allow TWC to carry their network in a manner that was in the best interests of our customers and our business," which he said only became apparent last week. "We notified customers as soon as the possiblity of that impasse became apparent," running ads to that effect in different markets last week, he said.

The two sides are at odds as the NFL Network looks to keep itself off of the digital sports tier on which Time Warner wants to place the network. The NFL says that monthly fees are not at issue, the differences are over where the network would be carried.

Having similar troubles with Cablevision and Charter, the network this week launched an acid-tongued consumer-marketing push using tagline such as "Don’t let Time Warner ruin your football season" and "Don’t let Charter shut you out." The wide-ranging campaign spans TV, radio and print, as well as NFL assets, and pushes consumers to switch to DirecTV or Dish Network, both of which carry the network on basic packages.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6358476

Time Warner's Response to NFL Network:

http://www.nflgetreal.com/

Here is my take on a couple of TWC's statements:

TWC QUOTE ="We’re concerned that the NFL’s rising costs make it unaffordable. They cannot control their costs and they stick fans with the tab. They even want non–fans to pay for NFL Network."

This is again where TWC has to pass on every fee to the customer instead absorbing the cost with their RECORD PROFITS.

TWC QUOTE ="Our experience and customer research tells us that the best way to do this is to place the NFL Network in a sports package. Customers who are sports fans like the convenience‚ the focus the consistency and the value offered by our sports package. "

Create a Sports Package, move all the sports channels (ESPNs, Regional Sports) into it, price it so it pays for it self +some and keep the Teir pricing the same; Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo'money !!!!

TW-In markets that already have the NFL Network, they are asking for a 350 percent increase for adding only 8 regular season games

Well thats your own fault for not getting us the nfl network 2 years ago when you should have!!! Thats not looking out for your consumers best interest.

If you would have signed a long term deal 2 years ago you wouldn't be in this situation I would have the NFL network.

Just like you made me wait over a year for CBS in HD in the Myrtle beach market.

I don't care much about TW's issue, but the NFL is in the wrong here IMO with their price increases. They basically got all of their money from the traditional outlets and then created a new package for themselves to sell at high rates to cable, and thus eventually, the consumers. If they pull the games from providers that don't pay, they have basically made the games PPV in a way.

TW-In markets that already have the NFL Network, they are asking for a 350 percent increase for adding only 8 regular season games

Well thats your own fault for not getting us the nfl network 2 years ago when you should have!!! Thats not looking out for your consumers best interest.

If you would have signed a long term deal 2 years ago you wouldn't be in this situation I would have the NFL network.

Just like you made me wait over a year for CBS in HD in the Myrtle beach market.


That's not a bad point. Seriously, did cable or satellite operators think that The NFL Network wasn't going to succeed?

Personally, I'm on the fence with this one, I can see it both ways (seeing how hindsight is 20/20). I know if D* charged me $1 a month for it, I'd pay it. It's a great channel. But seeing how I'm paying for A&E, Lifetime, and a multitude of channels I never watch, they better offer The NFL Network in their basic package.

TWC is probably going to lose this battle, and subscribers will end up paying $1 or so more a month. We all know, a cable company isn't going to take the loss.

TW-In markets that already have the NFL Network, they are asking for a 350 percent increase for adding only 8 regular season games

Well thats your own fault for not getting us the nfl network 2 years ago when you should have!!! Thats not looking out for your consumers best interest.

If you would have signed a long term deal 2 years ago you wouldn't be in this situation I would have the NFL network.

Just like you made me wait over a year for CBS in HD in the Myrtle beach market.

Wait a minute.

If they would have signed an agreement to carry NFLN two years ago on basic, the rates would have gone from 25-35 cents to 85-95 cents, BUT if they signed an agreement to carry it on a digital tier, they have to pay $2 extra X 12 months just for those 8 games.

No matter how you slice it, the NFL is slowly transitioning their product to total PPV status and you all are falling for it hook line and sinker !!!!!!!!!!

You ought to be pissed at the NFL !!!!!! How does a $39.95 PPV Super Bowl sound, or $59.95 if you want it in HD.

Sounds like $4.00/gallon/gas with record profits to me.

Wait a minute.

If they would have signed an agreement to carry NFLN two years ago on basic, the rates would have gone from 25-35 cents to 85-95 cents, BUT if they signed an agreement to carry it on a digital tier, they have to pay $2 extra X 12 months just for those 8 games.

No matter how you slice it, the NFL is slowly transitioning their product to total PPV status and you all are falling for it hook line and sinker !!!!!!!!!!

You ought to be pissed at the NFL !!!!!! How does a $39.95 PPV Super Bowl sound, or $59.95 if you want it in HD.

Sounds like $4.00/gallon/gas with record profits to me.

The whole industry is moving that direction, what's the difference with the NFL getting their piece of the pie?

Seems that everyone has their own networks where they are willing to finally take a stand, but they won't support the basic principle on a wider scale if it may affect networks they happen to want subsidized.

Wait a minute.

If they would have signed an agreement to carry NFLN two years ago on basic, the rates would have gone from 25-35 cents to 85-95 cents, BUT if they signed an agreement to carry it on a digital tier, they have to pay $2 extra X 12 months just for those 8 games.

No matter how you slice it, the NFL is slowly transitioning their product to total PPV status and you all are falling for it hook line and sinker !!!!!!!!!!

You ought to be pissed at the NFL !!!!!! How does a $39.95 PPV Super Bowl sound, or $59.95 if you want it in HD.

Sounds like $4.00/gallon/gas with record profits to me.

If I understand you correctly than your saying the NFLN can charge whatever they want whenever they want during the time of the contract. I'm sorry It doesn't work like that if that was the case than everyone locked into a deal for 4 years could constantly raise the price and nothing can be done about. The cable companies are smarter than that.

They lock in a deal at a set price and it stays there until contract is up unless their contract specifies otherwise.

I myself am willing to eat the extra $1 or $2 that TW would be charged if I could have that channel. But no one in the cable industry wants ala carte programming so they have to deal with their own mess.

I can understand the NFL using their marketing power to get the most money and carriage for their channel. The cable cos know that outside of the 8 late season games and the two college bowl games, this network really has nothing else. It wants ESPN type money and carriage but it isn't even ESPN Classic Lite. So I can see why cable cos would like to relegate the channel to the land of "Sports Pack".

We're talking about 8 games here people. 8 late season games. Don't be surprised if in a couple of years more games are either taken away from the networks or Sunday Ticket so that the NFL network can add more regular season games, therefore, creating a even greater demand.

ESPN was able to force analog tier carriage with only 16 or 17 mediocre match-up NFL games (plus tractor pulls and rodeos).

Don't be surprised if in a couple of years more games are either taken away from the networks or Sunday Ticket so that the NFL network can add more regular season games, therefore, creating a even greater demand.

I won't be surprised if the NFL moves to PPV at some point (beyond NFLST). Like all sports, they are looking to maximize revenue to allow for even higher salaries and profits. Of course, the fans, many of whom the NFL see as true fanatics, are expected to pay for the increased quality of life for everyone attached to the game. Remember, these 8 games are NOT 8 MORE GAMES for national television. They have just been moved to a new, higher cost network.

At some point, maybe the general public will decide it's been enough. Probably won't happen any time too soon, but things do tend to cycle, and every other major sport has gone through some major pains in the past 15 years or so.

ESPN was able to force analog tier carriage with only 16 or 17 mediocre match-up NFL games (plus tractor pulls and rodeos).

Quite true, but it was 16 or 17 games and tractor pulls, rodeos and gymnasics. That's the difference. The NFL Network only has 8, count them, 8 games and two college football bowl games. The rest of the programming will consist of replays. It remains to be seen if the NFL will pay for the programming rights to rodeos and other non-football programming. At this point, they're not but for the net to be florish and make real money they need to expand beyond what they have now.

ESPN was able to force analog tier carriage with only 16 or 17 mediocre match-up NFL games (plus tractor pulls and rodeos)....plus college football and basketball plus the NBA plus MLB plus Sportscenter plus the fact that it's actually worth something the rest of the year outside of a mere sliver of a sports season. If it weren't for them hoarding eight games for themselves, the NFL Network's worth for most viewers is questionable at best, yet they want ALL cable viewers to pay for it. Even for the die-hard fan, it's not as if ESPN and the RSNs are ignoring football during the off-season.
I won't be surprised if the NFL moves to PPV at some point (beyond NFLST). Like all sports, they are looking to maximize revenue to allow for even higher salaries and profits. Of course, the fans, many of whom the NFL see as true fanatics, are expected to pay for the increased quality of life for everyone attached to the game. Remember, these 8 games are NOT 8 MORE GAMES for national television. They have just been moved to a new, higher cost network.Yeah, they could do that ... but they'd risk losing the buzz which makes the NFL so popular. Only a tiny fraction of the broadcast audience would watch on PPV. You'd lose millions of people who spread the word by talking about key plays for days on end, or buy the licensed merchandise. The Sunday night newscasts may have to stop showing highlights, depriving the NFL of yet another form of free advertising.

In short, you'd have a heck of a lot more people saying, "Who cares?"

So if I were a cable operator who'd been carrying NFL Network from the git go paying 25 to 35 cents, and now they want a surcharge of $2.00/month/12 months ($24/year) for 8 games that may be of no real consequnce, or move it to basic at 95 cents/month/sub, I'd be pissed.

NFL Network is WAY out of line. They're essentially "tiering" their channel, with the 8 games, or without the eight games, while not allowing TWC the option of tiering.

Can you say HYPOCRITE ????

Hey, I'm the biggest NFL honk of all-time, but I have to say that I agree that this $2/sub sur-charge for existing cable agreements ... is over the top. They are penalizing the providers who jumped on board with them in the beginning days of the NFL Network.

Mind you ... I still am not excusing TWC for not adding the channel when it was .25/sub. But, I really don't think penalizing those who did (by adding a sur-charge to carry the 8 live regular season games), is fair at all.

They should just make the entire league PPV and be done with it.

...plus college football and basketball plus the NBA plus MLB plus Sportscenter plus the fact that it's actually worth something the rest of the year outside of a mere sliver of a sports season. If it weren't for them hoarding eight games for themselves, the NFL Network's worth for most viewers is questionable at best, yet they want ALL cable viewers to pay for it. Even for the die-hard fan, it's not as if ESPN and the RSNs are ignoring football during the off-season.


NBA and MLB came later, but it's a moot point because it was the NFL games that gave them the clout. In fact, ESPN was also at only 8 NFL games for the first 10 years, so there is a very similar parallel. You say the NFL was "hoarding", but they could have sold that package for probably $400 million, so it was an investment in their network.

But you're looking at the situation from your viewpoint and how you value the programming, the cablecos look at a network from what they will gain or lose with/without carriage. They did not buckle to ESPN because it was a well rounded sports channel with moderate interest in the 6 month off-season - they buckled because people demanded their NFL games. The way the system is setup, all you need is a loyal 5%-10% that may leave their provider. No MSO can afford 5% defections in their customer base, so those networks' "value" is magnified.

The NFL Films library will fill up the off-season initially, but trust me, once they get a taste of the mega carriage fees, they will expand their live programming and start pumping out multiple networks just like everyone else. Forget the fee per month today, people should be worried about the $6 a month for 5 NFL networks 10 years from now.

I'm rooting for the NFL because it appears the only way to get a major correction in the system is for every entity to force carriage of their channel - then use that expanded carriage to build a following that will enable them to force carriage of additional channels. We'll eventually reach our collective breaking point, and the more rapid the growth of the network feeding frenzy, the sooner that point will come.

I'm rooting for the NFL because it appears the only way to get a major correction in the system is for every entity to force carriage of their channel - then use that expanded carriage to build a following that will enable them to force carriage of additional channels. We'll eventually reach our collective breaking point, and the more rapid the growth of the network feeding frenzy, the sooner that point will come.

To what advantage? Are you looking for the system to break so that we can have a la carte? If so, I'm in agreement with you. Let programming be provided and sold on its actual customer demand.

You may be right about the multiple networks, but in reality, the NFL is a very limited product. I'm not sure how they'll diversify into multiple networks when they can't keep most fans interest throughout the season on one.

And, yes, the NFL created this 8 game package, but maybe the market wasn't that interested in it. ABC could no longer deal with the cost/benefit of MNF. NBC got out of the game in the past due to cost/benefit of the NFL. There is a breaking point for networks and for customers, and it will most likely be reached at some point.

It will be interesting to see the ratings for the Sunday night games this year. After all, Sunday is a big night for network television, and it will be the 3rd game of the day for most markets. Will many other than die hard fans watch?

Carriage of the NFL Network vs. carriage of ESPN 25 years ago is a poor comparison. ESPN was the first cable sports network. It was marketed as the channel for sports junkies. There was no "digital sports tier" at the time ESPN came out. In contrast, the NFL is a niche channel aimed at a specific market -- perfect for the sports tier (along with NBATV, Tennis, FluelTV, Fox College Sports, ESPNU, CSTV, etc.).

ESPN came about because the major networks weren't meeting the demand for sports programming -- particularly college basketball, MLB, college football, sports news ("SportsCenter"), and yes, even the NFL. In contrast, recently, the NFL has been well served by the networks and ESPN -- I can't remember the last time I was not able to watch my local team on TV.

So, the NFL comes along and adds a channel that carries one local game my local affiliate is already carrying and seven other games that the casual NFL fan wouldn't watch anyway. While the NFL is popular, these additional seven games don't put it anywhere near the value delivered by ESPN on the basic cable tier.

The NFL knows that, if the NFL Network is put on the sports tier, that the casual NFL fan might add it on come time for the games but then cancel the sports tier by the end of the football season. TWC and the NFL Network both know that the people who want the network year round are the NFL junkies who live for pro football, a much smaller niche than the network audience that has allegedly made the NFL the most popular sport in the country. TWC knows it has already lost these customers to the DirecTV NFL package.

To what advantage? Are you looking for the system to break so that we can have a la carte? If so, I'm in agreement with you. Let programming be provided and sold on its actual customer demand.

Exactly.

No difference between 10% forcing all subs to supplement the $2 NFL fee, 15% forcing supplementing the almost $4 ESPN suite fee, 5% screaming for Lifetime, etc.

Let them go a la carte and force the market to dictate their individual worth. Otherwise, maybe when our average bill reaches $250 a month, those saying "a la carte is bad because I'll pay more for the same stuff" will realize how naive and short-sighted that viewpoint is.

Carriage of the NFL Network vs. carriage of ESPN 25 years ago is a poor comparison. ESPN was the first cable sports network. It was marketed as the channel for sports junkies. There was no "digital sports tier" at the time ESPN came out. In contrast, the NFL is a niche channel aimed at a specific market -- perfect for the sports tier (along with NBATV, Tennis, FluelTV, Fox College Sports, ESPNU, CSTV, etc.).

ESPN came about because the major networks weren't meeting the demand for sports programming -- particularly college basketball, MLB, college football, sports news ("SportsCenter"), and yes, even the NFL. In contrast, recently, the NFL has been well served by the networks and ESPN -- I can't remember the last time I was not able to watch my local team on TV.[\QUOTE]

You're giving reason why you, and perhaps others, value ESPN. That isn't the point. If they created such a demand, and were so valuable to the consumer, they would not have have needed to force carriage on a basic tier - then later force carriage of all ESPN channels by tying in local ABC affiliates.

The comparison is the same, tractor pulls didn't get ESPN prime carriage, niether did college football bowl games. It was half a season of SNF and all of SNF 8 years ago that gave them leverage. If ESPN isn't on the "Sports Tier" (not sure how you can argue that ESPN isn't "perfect for the sports tier"), no reason for the NFL to settle for less than broad carriage.

Everyone seems to only view channels they don't watch as "niche" channels. Take a look at the ratings - outside of the major broadcast networks, which channel wouldn't be considered a niche channel?

Dear NFL Network:

Currently I have TWC's limited service for $6.75 / month, plus the HD Tier (which includes ESPNHD) for $6.95 / month, plus the sports tier for $2.95 / month. If the NFL network is added to basic cable, I will not upgrade my service for the approximately $40.00 /month just to see seven additional games. The only way I will get to see the NFL Network is if its added to the sports tier. Please add it to the sports tier.

Thank you,

DC10

dc:

You can order your sports tier without a standard cable lineup? No wonder you are looking for sports tier placement - it's not because you don't want it, it's because you do. :eek:

My cableco wouldn't even allow HD STB rental for local networks without limited basic/basic/digital tier subscriptions.

Everyone seems to only view channels they don't watch as "niche" channels. Take a look at the ratings - outside of the major broadcast networks, which channel wouldn't be considered a niche channel?

Fair enough. To the extent ESPN is marketed to people who like sports its a niche channel, but that is a pretty big niche. Lifetime Netowork, Oxygen, etc. is marketed to women -- a fairly big niche. Ratings are anoter question. My guess is ESPN has better ratings than the Lifetime Netowrk even if it is geared to a smaller niche.

That makes the NFL Network a niche within a niche. Ratings wise I don't know where it is. Sports fans who like the NFL, (or more precisely, sports fans who like out of market NFL games, pre-season games, and the occasional college bowl game, and other NFL related programming) are a subset of all sports fans.

One might point out that TWC carries the golf channel on the basic tier. To be consistent, this should be moved to the sports tier or the NFL needs to be on the basic tier.

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

Time Warner's Response to NFL Network:

http://www.nflgetreal.com/

As much as I think the sur-charge thing that the NFL Network is trying to pull on existing cable providers is really over-the-top ... this-- the TWC response is an absolute joke. Do they think they are going to persuade anyone to attempt to nudge the NFL to allow for the NFLN to go on worthless sports tier? Very feeble. Either TWC will add it to expanded basic (and pass on the cost), or they will continue to resist and deal with the fall-out.

LA Times Article on this mess (http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-nfltv2aug02,1,61228.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-nfl)

So if I read that correctly TWC could pay a $2 surcharge and put it on the digital pay tier right now?

Sports On TV
NFL Net Picks Up its 4th Bowl Game this Year


By John Consoli MediaWeek.com August 2, 2006

The NFL Network has acquired multi-year broadcast rights to the All-American Classic, a post-season college All-Star game. The sixth annual All-American Classic game will be played on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Monday, January 15 at 4 p.m. at Sam Boyd Stadium in Las Vegas.

This is the fourth bowl game NFL Network has acquired this year, including the Insight Bowl, Houston bowl game (yet unnamed) and the Senior Bowl. “The All-American Classic is integral to our continuing coverage of college football,” said Katie Boes, NFL Network’s senior director of programming. “NFL Network now serves college football fans from kickoff to Combine with regular-season college football programming, followed by four bowl games and exclusive coverage of the annual Scouting Combine in February.”

The All-American Classic features more than 100 college all-stars competing in an East vs. West format. This summer’s NFL training camp rosters have 78 players from the 2006 Classic. With the addition of this bowl game, NFL Network is now the national home of 170 football games each year, including eight regular-season and 52 preseason NFL games, 75 re-airs of NFL regular-season games, 31 NFL Europe League contests, the Insight Bowl, the Houston bowl game, and the Senior Bowl.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/cabletv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002949365

So if I read that correctly TWC could pay a $2 surcharge and put it on the digital pay tier right now?

My guess is that the $2 surcharge applies onlly to systems with legacy contracts which probably had fine print which excluded "certain future programming" and that this offer is probably not on the table for TWC, which may be part of the problem.

But we'll never know for sure. Who the hell are we anyway????? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

As much as I think the sur-charge thing that the NFL Network is trying to pull on existing cable providers is really over-the-top ... this-- the TWC response is an absolute joke. Do they think they are going to persuade anyone to attempt to nudge the NFL to allow for the NFLN to go on worthless sports tier? Very feeble. Either TWC will add it to expanded basic (and pass on the cost), or they will continue to resist and deal with the fall-out.

If the NFL was so confident in the market value of their product, they'd have no problem allowing a cable operator to add the channel on a tier. Why should they care whether or not they get 95 cents from 100% of the homes passed, or $3.95 from 25% of the homes passed. It's the same money.

The cowards know that their product would NOT acheive 25% penetration as part of a $9.95 retail sports tiers, because very few but the strongest fans will pay $120/year for 8 games.

Reality check:

TWC now has 15,000,000 subscribers. At $11/year per subscriber, that's $165,000,000 worth of incremental expense. That's a fair amount of change to satisfy a handful of hard core fans. $20,000,000 per game in fact. Ridiculous !!!!

If the NFL was so confident in the market value of their product, they'd have no problem allowing a cable operator to add the channel on a tier. Why should they care whether or not they get 95 cents from 100% of the homes passed, or $3.95 from 25% of the homes passed. It's the same money.

The cowards know that their product would NOT acheive 25% penetration as part of a $9.95 retail sports tiers, because very few but the strongest fans will pay $120/year for 8 games.

$3.60 * 90 million * 12 months = $3.88 Billion for ESPN.

That's a boatload for only 17 games a year.

How much you want to bet that if that was distributed only over the sports fans that watch it, there's no way they'd get 17% penetration at $20 a month (assuming the MSOs would carry the channel with no mark up.) Take away the NFL and there's absolutely no chance they'd even get $3.60 a month from 25% of subs.

NFL aren't cowards, they are just playing the game. In fact, they are trying to leverage the popularity of the programming in order to entice carriage. That's not as bad as leveraging another network's programming to force a different channel. If they over estimate their popularity, TWC and the others can say no thanks - no harm, no foul.

If the NFL was so confident in the market value of their product, they'd have no problem allowing a cable operator to add the channel on a tier. Why should they care whether or not they get 95 cents from 100% of the homes passed, or $3.95 from 25% of the homes passed. It's the same money.

Because a wider distribution enables NFL Network to charge more for advertising.

Because a wider distribution enables NFL Network to charge more for advertising.

I knew that what come up. Advertisers pay for VIEWERS. Just because you have four times the distribution doesn't guarantee four times the viewers. Perhaps the actual viewership lost by being on a sports tier could be offset by charging a higher carriage fee.

The impact of advertising has been greatly dwarfed by the much more lucrative carriage fees. Almost all major cable nets, if forced to choose, would go completely ad-free before giving up their carriage fees.

The impact of advertising has been greatly dwarfed by the much more lucrative carriage fees. Almost all major cable nets, if forced to choose, would go completely ad-free before giving up their carriage fees.

So what happens next season. 16 regular season games plus divisional playoffs on NFL Networks??? Rates increase to $3.95/month on mandatory basic. WHERE does it stop ????

The impact of advertising has been greatly dwarfed by the much more lucrative carriage fees. Almost all major cable nets, if forced to choose, would go completely ad-free before giving up their carriage fees.

That says quite a bit about carriage fees and how out of hand this has gotten. When will this stop? We won't know until the public just decides enough is enough. I know I walked away from ST due to the cost plus the SuperFan. Although I'd like to see the games on NFL Network, I don't think I'd switch providers for that privilege.

So what happens next season. 16 regular season games plus divisional playoffs on NFL Networks??? Rates increase to $3.95/month on mandatory basic. WHERE does it stop ????

It won't. Look for annual increases and forced carriage of additional NFL branded networks at the next negotiation.... and it won't be dependent on adding additional NFL games.

Some numbers from Sports Business Journal via today’s Los Angeles Times:

“…the Sports Business Journal said the fees have gone from 25 to 35 cents per subscriber per month to 85 to 95 cents, and that there is a $2 surcharge for cable companies such as Time Warner that want to put the network on a digital pay tier….”

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfltv2aug02,1,5407431,print.story?coll=la-headlines-sports

The NFL is nothing more than a greedy money hungry organization. It's pathetic how much worse it's gotten as of late. MNF switching over to ESPN, because ESPN paid them an ungodly amount for the coverage. And how did ESPN afford that? They charge an ungodly amount for their channel. Talk about getting bent over twice by the nfl...

Now, they're demanding that TWC carry the channel? Although I absolutely love football, I certainly understand where TWC is coming from. The NFL is a bunch of greedy bastards. Much like espn did, you get people used to having the channel and make it a decent channel.. then you slowly keep hiking the fees until people are paying several dollars a month JUST for ESPN. Ridiculous. It reminds me much like taxes and toll roads.. once you implement them they RARELY go away, and just keep increasing.

It's a shame how the nfl tries to milk every last dollar possible from any affiliates. EA sports bought the sole rights to nfl branded football games so now they have a monopoly. You can't blame EA for buying the rights, since the NFL had the sole decision to grant exclusive rights to one company, and chose to do so. Now it's coming out w/ its own channel and strong arming carriers into carrying their channel. Pathetic. If the NFL keeps this up, nfl games just might be PPV eventually..

This crap is definetly infuriating to the customers who do want the nfl channel and to TWC since they don't want to give into the nfl.. :mad:

The NFL is nothing more than a greedy money hungry organization. It's pathetic how much worse it's gotten as of late. MNF switching over to ESPN, because ESPN paid them an ungodly amount for the coverage. And how did ESPN afford that? They charge an ungodly amount for their channel. Talk about getting bent over twice by the nfl...


Could be partialy true but the reason ABC no longer has MNF is because they didn't want it anymore, the ratings weren't there. Disney still wanted MNF thus they moved in with a bid from ESPN. This left Sunday Night open. ABC still didn't want anything to do with it and thus NBC got back into the NFL game.

Could be partialy true but the reason ABC no longer has MNF is because they didn't want it anymore, the ratings weren't there. Disney still wanted MNF thus they moved in with a bid from ESPN. This left Sunday Night open. ABC still didn't want anything to do with it and thus NBC got back into the NFL game.

I cannot remember the details of the articles I read, but I thought ABC largely opted to drop MNF because the NFL wanted even more $ for the 2007 season. MNF I read was sort of a "loss leader" for ABC, and was losing ABC money. ABC opted to keep MNF for so many years because of the tradition. I thought the ratings for MNF on ABC were very good, they just didn't generate enough revenue to cover the licensing.

This is where ESPN (ABC's affiliate) stepped in and had the $ to pay for MNF because of their steep monthly subscriber fees. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I heard ESPN paid some insane price like ~1 billion dollars for x number of years... to carry MNF..

ABC lost $150 million a year looking strictly at the fee minus advertising generated. ESPN projects a $200 million a year profit despite $500 million more for the rights fees and less advertising revenue due to being in fewer households. That $850 million + a year swing will come out of our pockets via our MSOs.

The NFL has a lot of value to networks offering them a high profile outlet for promoting their primetime lineup. Normally, that "loss" on paper is viewed as an investment in advertising and network prestige. In this case, ABC/ESPN probably realized that there would be nothing preventing ABC from pushing their fall shows via ESPN so there was no need for the ABC business unit to carry that loss on their books.

But that's not NFL greed, unless you expect businesses to not accept the highest bidder.

From Multichannel News,

FCC Orders NFL Back on Time Warner
8/3/2006 8:24:00 AM

Washington – The Federal Communications Commission has ordered Time Warner Cable to reinstate the NFL Network on systems Time Warner acquired this week from Adelphia Communications Corp.

The National Football League, which owns the network, had claimed FCC rules require cable operators to provide consumers a 30-day notice before dropping a channel if carriage of the channel “is within the control of the cable operator.”
NFLN said it gave Time Warner permission to carry the network for 30 days. Dropping the channel immediately violated FCC rules, NFL said, because whether to carry the channel on a short-term basis was within Time Warner’s control. The network asked the FCC to order Time Warner to restore carriage for the required 30-day period.

Time Warner Cable had said in response the company was “in full compliance with the FCC’s notification rules.”

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6359114.html
FCC Orders NFL Back on Time Warner - 8/3/2006 8:24:00 AM - Multichannel News - CA6359114

And from Broadcasting & Cable:

FCC Orders TW To Carry Ball for Now

By John Eggerton & Ben Grossman Broadcasting & Cable 8/3/2006

The FCC has ordered Time Warner to reinstate the NFL Network on the systems it has newly acquired from Adelphia and Comcast until the FCC can act on an NFL petition for an emergency ruling on their carriage dispute.

"Based on the current state of the record," the FCC said Thursday, "we conclude that the NFL is entitled to appropriate interim relief. The FCC cited the public's interest in access to the network, saying it ouweighed any potential harm to Time Warner.

By contrast, the FCC said the NFL could suffer "irreparable harm" if viewers are denied the preseason games that begin in August and help establish viewing patterns for the rest of the season.

"Specifically, we direct that Time Warner reinstate carriage of the NFL Network on all of its newly acquired systems on the same terms under which it was carried prior to August 1, 2006, until we are able to resolve the NFL’s Petition on the merits," the FCC said. "In addition, due to the time-sensitive nature of the NFL’s request, we direct Time Warner to file its response to the NFL’s Petition on or before August 15, 2006."

While not prejudging the outcome, the FCC said the NFL had a sufficient likelihood of prevailing to warrant the temporary restoration of the network.

Although the FCC's Thursday order ended with the curious declaration that "Time Warner has established a sufficient prospect of success on the merits to justify this relief," that turned out to be a typo.

The NFL petition filed earlier this week, claims that Time Warner violated Section 76.1603(b) "of the Commission’s rules requiring adequate notice to subscribers before dropping a cable channel from cable systems Time Warner recently acquired from Adelphia Communications and Comcast Corporation." That period of adequate notice is 30 days, according to the Commission’s rules.

"As a result of Time Warner quietly and suddenly pulling our NFL Network channel off cable systems around the country last night at midnight, we were left with no alternative under FCC rules but to file this injunction," said the league in a statement. "NFL fans who called us today said they were not given a fair chance on the eve of the NFL season to have their voice heard on this decision by Time Warner. We owe it to our fans to help them fight for their rights. Those rights were abruptly and unfairly taken from them late last night."

Systems that lost the NFL Network as of Aug. 1 included football hotbeds such as Kansas City, Cleveland and Dallas.

Calling the filing "frivolous," "Time Warner Cable spokesman Mark Harrad said earlier this week: "We think we are in full compliance with the FCC's notification rules. The rule is 30 days notice unless the change is beyond your control," Harrad said. "The NFL Network made it apparent to us that they would not allow TWC to carry their network in a manner that was in the best interests of our customers and our business," which he said only became apparent last week. "We notified customers as soon as the possiblity of that impasse became apparent," running ads to that effect in different markets last week, he said.

But the FCC said Thursday that: "Given the current state of the record, it appears that Time Warner discontinued carriage of the NFL Network without providing customers with the requisite 30-days notice.... Moreover, it appears that the decision made by Time Warner was “within the control of the cable operator”...since the termination of the NFL Network did not result from any uncontrollable external event, such as a natural disaster.

"Moreover, we find that the NFL has a reasonable prospect of showing that Time Warner’s actions, which affected millions of customers across the nation residing within numerous franchising authorities’ jurisdiction, constitute systemic abuses that undermine the statutory objectives. "

The two sides are at odds as the NFL Network looks to keep itself off of the digital sports tier on which Time Warner wants to place the network. The NFL says that monthly fees are not at issue, the differences are over where the network would be carried. The NFL is said to be asking $100 million for the package, or in the neighborhood of 90 cents per sub per month. If so, that is high by cable network standards. At the high end, ESPN gets three dollars a sub, but the bulk of top tier cable nets are in the 20 cent-50 cent range.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6359098

FCC Orders TW to Reinstate NFL Net Carriage
By John Consoli MediaWeek.com August 3, 2006

The Federal Communications Commission has ordered Time Warner Cable to reinstate carriage of the NFL Network on all its newly acquired Adelphia cable systems until the FCC is able to examine and render a decision on a motion filed by the NFL Network seeking permanent reinstatement.

Upon closing its deal to acquire the Adelphia systems, Time Warner, on Tuesday, Aug. 1, pulled the NFL Network from all the Adelphia systems. Time Warner does not carry the NFL Network on its Time Warner systems and has been negotiating with the network to come up with a carriage deal.

The NFL Network on Tuesday filed a petition with the FCC and Time Warner has yet to officially respond, but the FCC ordered Time Warner to file a response no later than August 15. NFL Network would then have an opportunity to respond to the Time Warner response by August 20.

The FCC said, "This expedited pleading cycle will afford the Commission to promptly resolve this dispute."

In reinstating the NFL Network to the former Adelpha systems until it can rule on the case, the FCC said it was being done in the public's interest. It said that Time Warner must follow the rule that cable operators must give subscribers 30 days notice before dropping a channel. The governing body said in this case, "it appears that Time Warner (discontinued ) the NFL Network with essentially no warning to customers."

Among the markets where the network was pulled was in Cleveland, Buffalo and Dallas, where there are NFL teams. "Such asction by Time Warner was particularly harmful to customers given the time of year," the FCC said. "With NFL training camps now underway and the NFL's pre-season schedule commencing on Aug. 11, now is a time when many football fans have a particular desire to view the NFL Network's programming. Therefore, each day the Time Warner customers go without the NFL Network significantly and irreparably harms many of them."

The FCC said while it is not making a final decision on the merits of the NFL's petition, a temporary reinstatement until the merits can be weighed, is in the public's interest.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002950066

Sports On TV
FCC Orders TW to Reinstate NFL Net Carriage

Here is the complete FCC statement:

Help me understand this...

Did the court rule that TWC only needs to give subs 30 days notice or is there another issue?

So if TWC NOW gives notice will they be able to drop NFLN in early Sept?

If so, this is just dumb.

Help me understand this...

Did the court rule that TWC only needs to give subs 30 days notice or is there another issue?

So if TWC NOW gives notice will they be able to drop NFLN in early Sept?

If so, this is just dumb.

Yes, theoretically, TWC could still drop the NFL Network in September from the former Adelphia/Comcast subs.

Help me understand this...

Did the court rule that TWC only needs to give subs 30 days notice or is there another issue?

So if TWC NOW gives notice will they be able to drop NFLN in early Sept?

If so, this is just dumb.


First of all, the FCC isn't a court, its part of the executive branch. TWC can and likely will "appeal" this temporary injunction to a federal district court -- by filing suit against the FCC and NFL network. There would be several grounds for this lawsuit. TWC would ask the court to issue a temporary injunction against the FCC ruling. Thus, I seriously doubt that the NFL network will be here tomorrow despite this ruling by the FCC.

Second, you are right. TWC can say it has already provided the 30 day notice to people as of 8/1/2006 and drop the NFLN in early Sept., likely before the FCC even issues a final ruling (assuming TWC does not appeal the temporary injunction).

ABC lost $150 million a year looking strictly at the fee minus advertising generated. ESPN projects a $200 million a year profit despite $500 million more for the rights fees and less advertising revenue due to being in fewer households. That $850 million + a year swing will come out of our pockets via our MSOs.

The NFL has a lot of value to networks offering them a high profile outlet for promoting their primetime lineup. Normally, that "loss" on paper is viewed as an investment in advertising and network prestige. In this case, ABC/ESPN probably realized that there would be nothing preventing ABC from pushing their fall shows via ESPN so there was no need for the ABC business unit to carry that loss on their books.

But that's not NFL greed, unless you expect businesses to not accept the highest bidder.To be honest, the MNF move also removed the thorny issue of affiliate newscasts from the equation. It seems every year there was always some debate over when MNF should air. Do you air it at 9 Eastern and push the late news on the East Coast well past midnight or even 1 a.m.? Or do you start at 8 Eastern and screw West Coast stations out of their 5 and 6 o'clock newscasts? That will no longer be an issue for ABC anymore. And for NBC affiliates, they'll learn to live without an early Sunday newscast if they have to.

But that's not NFL greed, unless you expect businesses to not accept the highest bidder.

I think you are mistaken.. Perhaps I am wrong, but if you have a source for your info that would be helpful.

Anyway.. Seeing as how ABC and ESPN are both owned by Disney, it would be moronic/illogical for ESPN to outbid ABC. I thought that the NFL essentially wanted more money and ABC decided it was too much, and turned it over to ESPN. So, the NFL was being greedy because essentially it just wanted more money.

Also, the NFL/EA sports deal clearly shows the greed of the NFL. They milked the highest paying bidder for the rights to produce nfl football games. Realistically, this alienates any smaller companies from creating a good product. They could have simply stuck to their original plan and just charged licensing fees to anyone that used the nfl name, but they went for the big payday.

Making money is obviously the main concern when it comes to business, but ethics should be a concern as well. Unfortunately many companies look the other way when it comes to money. :rolleyes:

ESPN didn't outbid ABC - ABC declined to bid.

The NFL also didn't force ESPN to pay anything, they made an offer and the NFL accepted it. All networks are free to bid what they feel it is worth - do you suggest the NFL should put a ceiling on that value?

Help me understand this...

Did the court rule that TWC only needs to give subs 30 days notice or is there another issue?

So if TWC NOW gives notice will they be able to drop NFLN in early Sept?

If so, this is just dumb.
Losing the NFL Network for a few days gets everyones attention in Cleveland, Kansas City, Buffalo, and Dallas. Now for the next 30 days the momentum will be with the NFL Network and gives lots of TWC subs the time to hear the "move to DISH" message, which makes a lot bigger statement than any press release.
No court will force TWC to keep the NFL Network indefinitely but losing a big chunk of subs would.
A La Carte would solve all of this. :)
Does anyone know what the most popular cable channel is charging TWC per subscriber a month ? FOX-News? CNN? Discovery? TLC? I just want to keep this in perspective.

Fox News is now about 25 cents a sub -- many of those contracts were signed in the early years of FNC when it barely had any ratings at all. Now that it has dominated in the news ratimngs for closde to five years, contracts are being renegotiated and FNC is asking $1 a month, although most think it will settle for about 75 cents.
CNN is somewhere between 44 and 60 cents a sub. I don't know about the others.
But to keep it in (sports) perspective, ESPN is $2.60 and up a month, ESPN2 $2.00+, and most RSNs are in the $2-$3 range.

ESPN didn't outbid ABC - ABC declined to bid.

The NFL also didn't force ESPN to pay anything, they made an offer and the NFL accepted it. All networks are free to bid what they feel it is worth - do you suggest the NFL should put a ceiling on that value?

Exactly right.

And, another thought for those of you out there who think that this is more about channel (tier) positioning and less about money (as TWC is stating)-- answer this ...

Why then is the Golf Channel, Speed Channel, etc. on basic expanded and NOT on the sports tier? Hmmm.

Sports On TV
Time Warner Mulls FCC’s NFL Order

By Ted Hearn Multichannel News 8/3/2006

Washington – Time Warner Cable needs to carry the NFL Networkfor at least another 30 days on systems recently acquired from Adelphia Communications and Comcast under terms of a reinstatement order issued by the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday.

But Time Warner issued a statement after release of the FCC decision that suggested it had no plans to restore immediately the NFL Network to about 1 million subscribers that had access to the channel just a few days ago.

“Time Warner Cable is currently reviewing the FCC’s order regarding the NFL Network.This order was issued without offering us the opportunity to respond to the NFL Network’s allegations.We believe the FCC’s decision is wrong and we are considering our options,” said Time Warner Cable spokesman Mark Harrad.

The FCC ruling -- released just two days after the agency received the NFL Network’s complaint -- said restoration of carriage on an interim basis was appropriate because Time Warner Cable dropped the network without giving subscribers 30 days notice as required by FCC rules.

“We appreciate the FCC’s speedy action in response to our petition, and are gratified that the [FCC] has acted to protect the interests of cable consumers -- and NFL fans -- throughout the country,” the NFL said in a statement.

The FCC said it ruled against Time Warner because the NFL demonstrated that it would likely prevail when the agency takes a deeper look at the league’s complaint over the next few weeks.

“We find that the NFL has a reasonable prospect of showing that Time Warner’s actions, which affected millions of customers across the nation residing within numerous franchise authorities’ jurisdiction, constitute systemic abuses that undermine the statutory objectives,” FCC Media Bureau chief Donna Gregg wrote in a four-page order.

The FCC said Time Warner’s abrupt cutoff inflicted injury because it denied consumers sufficient time to find another pay-TV provider that carried the NFL Network and because it hurt the NFL Network on the eve the pre-season game schedule when “viewership patterns for the coming season (where to watch pre-game and post-game shows) are established ...”

Time Warner has said it did not have a legal right to carry the NFL Network on the acquired cable systems, but the NFL told the FCC that it had given the cable company permission to carry the channel for 30 days. About one-third of the 3.3 million subscribers that Time Warner acquired in the Adelphia merger had access to the NFL Network.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6359223

...No court will force TWC to keep the NFL Network indefinitely but losing a big chunk of subs would....

Actually, when it agreed to allow TW and Comcast to absorb the Adelphia subs, the FCC specified there would be mandatory arbitration for all carriage matters.

I assume that is where this will go next.

The arbitration will be a "baseball-style" process, where each side will submit its final offer and the arbitrator will pick one or the other.

Sports On TV
Time Warner Mulls FCC’s NFL Order



Time Warner has said it did not have a legal right to carry the NFL Network on the acquired cable systems, but the NFL told the FCC that it had given the cable company permission to carry the channel for 30 days.
That's interesting, depending on when the NFL gave permission, it looks like somebody is being just a bit less than truthful, any guess who that might be..? :p

This is, plain and simple, a PR disaster for TWC.

It is always amujsing to me when cable comopanies proclaim they are trying to hold down programming costs.

If that is so, for the past quarter century they have failed miserably, year after year after year, with their rates consistently and dramatically outpacing inlflation.

Any time a cable company tells you it is worried about how much you are going to have to pay, put both hands on your wallet.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2538379

I like ESPN's blunt take: "Feds Order Time Warner to Restore NFL Network," no talk about mulling it over.. just makes it look like time warner got slapped hard.

That's what football fans are gonna see. I LOOOOVE preseason football, I would be absolutely furious if my provider did that.

Wonder if D* will see a bump in new subscribers, especially since they have sunday ticket with 4 free months for new subscribers.... it may remind some football fans what they're missing.

This is, plain and simple, a PR disaster for TWC.

It is always amujsing to me when cable comopanies proclaim they are trying to hold down programming costs.

If that is so, for the past quarter century they have failed miserably, year after year after year, with their rates consistently and dramatically outpacing inlflation.

Any time a cable company tells you it is worried about how much you are going to have to pay, put both hands on your wallet.
Outstanding comments, so very true, literally laugh out loud true. :D

P.S. Especially for a parent company that just reported record breaking profits just the other day.

Exactly right.

And, another thought for those of you out there who think that this is more about channel (tier) positioning and less about money (as TWC is stating)-- answer this ...

Why then is the Golf Channel, Speed Channel, etc. on basic expanded and NOT on the sports tier? Hmmm.

I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to admit that this isn't about profits also.. The 85-95 cent sub fees for the nfl channel would definetly cut into profits, but demanding that they should be on the regular package or result in a crazy $2+ charge per sub is ridiculous. They're essentially forcing cable providers to add this channel on the regular programming.

All those other channels aren't on the sports tiers because they're cheap. I personally don't enjoy getting raped by ESPN but it certainly seems like some people don't mind on here. I'm all for a la carte pricing, but that's not a reality so I have to live with it. Paying ~$5/month to ESPN alone is a huge ripoff if you don't watch that channel. I do watch the channel, but I would certainly be pissed if I had to pay for a channel that I never watched (female households?).

Either way, if someone has some actual facts regarding ESPN's MNF contract, please present them. So far it just seems like lots of hearsay. My understanding is that the NFL hiked the fees, and ESPN came up w/ a number that they could agree on. PERIOD. Some people make it seem as if ESPN just said "Here's 1 billion dollars, I know you only wanted 750million, but what's 250million?" Which is absolute BS. If you really think that's how it was, you should pull your head out of the sand.

My point was that the NFL is a greedy company, which I don't understand why people choose to defend endlessly (perhaps people work for them on here?). The EA deal was pure greed, and the forcing of cable companies to include their channel at 85-95 cents or a steep $2+ on a sports package just reinforces that idea. I'm not naive/stupid enough to believe that TWC isn't looking out for its own wallet, but the NFL should just allow this channel to be added to a sports package for the "normal" 85-95 cents.

Sports On TV
NFL Net Still Benched on Time Warner
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 8/3/2006

At almost 6 p.m. Thursday, Time Warner had not yet restored the NFL Network to its newly acquired Adelphia and Comcast systems as it sought some avenue of appeal.

At about 10:30 a.m., the FCC let the press know it had ordered Time Warner to restore the network to those systems "immediately," An FCC spokeswoman was trying to determine at press time what "immediate" meant precisely, what appeal process Time Warner might have, and what the FCC's recourse for noncompliance might be.

The FCC said the NFL had made a case that the Time Warner move could do the network "irreparable harm," while keeping it on would not pose a similar hardship on Time Warner, since the carriage fight between NFL Network and the cable operator was not that Time Warner didn't want the channel, but that it didn't want it at NFL's price or terms.

The NFL "is not on at this moment," said Time Warner spokesman Mark Harrad. "We're reviewing the order to see what avenues of appeal are available to us. Whatever action we take will be dependent on that." It was not clear whether that would be an FCC appeal or a court challenge.

The FCC has not ruled on an NFL Network program carriage complaint filed earlier this week against Time Warner, but it has concluded that it is in the public's interest to keep the network on Time Warner while it tries to resolve it.

In that complaint, the NFL argued that Time Warner did not give the requisite 30-day notice before it pulled the network Aug. 1. Time Warner says it did. The FCC Thursday said the NFL Network had made a sufficient case for insufficient notice to warrant restoring the network while it judged the complaint.

Time Warner wants the NFL network to anchor a digital sports tier, while NFL wants to be in the most popular basic package.

The NFL is said to be asking $100 million for the package, or in the neighborhood of 90 cents per sub per month. If so, that is high by cable network standards. At the high end, ESPN gets three dollars a sub, but the bulk of top-tier cable nets are in the 20 cent-50 cent range.

The NFL Network has acquired some negotiating muscle since getting a package of regular-season games, the first in its history.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6359427

I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to admit that this isn't about profits also.. The 85-95 cent sub fees for the nfl channel would definetly cut into profits, but demanding that they should be on the regular package or result in a crazy $2+ charge per sub is ridiculous. They're essentially forcing cable providers to add this channel on the regular programming.

All those other channels aren't on the sports tiers because they're cheap. I personally don't enjoy getting raped by ESPN but it certainly seems like some people don't mind on here. I'm all for a la carte pricing, but that's not a reality so I have to live with it. Paying ~$5/month to ESPN alone is a huge ripoff if you don't watch that channel. I do watch the channel, but I would certainly be pissed if I had to pay for a channel that I never watched (female households?).

Either way, if someone has some actual facts regarding ESPN's MNF contract, please present them. So far it just seems like lots of hearsay. My understanding is that the NFL hiked the fees, and ESPN came up w/ a number that they could agree on. PERIOD. Some people make it seem as if ESPN just said "Here's 1 billion dollars, I know you only wanted 750million, but what's 250million?" Which is absolute BS. If you really think that's how it was, you should pull your head out of the sand.

My point was that the NFL is a greedy company, which I don't understand why people choose to defend endlessly (perhaps people work for them on here?). The EA deal was pure greed, and the forcing of cable companies to include their channel at 85-95 cents or a steep $2+ on a sports package just reinforces that idea. I'm not naive/stupid enough to believe that TWC isn't looking out for its own wallet, but the NFL should just allow this channel to be added to a sports package for the "normal" 85-95 cents.

As a side note: most -- if not all -- channels on "basic" tiers are there by contract, in effect forced by their owners on the providers.

The fact that many of the channel owners are providers themselves (NewsCorp, Turner, etc) or have other properties with which to bludgeon providers (GE/NBC/NBC Cable, CBS, Disney/ESPN) are pretty obvious.

The "free market" has little to do with what shows up on basic. He who has the biggest economic cudgel generallyt wins placement on the basic tier.

If TWC has been so concerned about the monthly costs to its consumers, how come its average monthly bills highest in the industry are by a substantial amount ($92.00+ to second-place Comcast's $86.00+)?

DirecTV is about $70.00, Dish, as I recall a bit less.

But as you requested, here are some NFL contract facts:

( en.wikipedia.org)

Currently, the NFL's TV broadcasters have suffered annual financial losses because advertising revenue is unable to meet the cost incurred by the purchase of broadcast rights.

Nevertheless, the next broadcast contract, which will begin in the 2006 season, will result in a sizeable increase in total rights fees. Both FOX and CBS renewed their Sunday afternoon broadcast packages through 2011, in both cases with modest increases. Furthermore, the league and DirecTV signed a five year extension to their exclusivity deal on NFL Sunday Ticket.

But despite relatively high, if declining, TV ratings, ABC decided to end its relationship with the NFL after losing significant sums of money on Monday Night Football. In addition to the fees issue, part of this decision may have been the result of a resurgent ABC primetime entertainment schedule during the 2004-05 season, particularly on Sunday evening; thus ABC would be unable to satisfy the league's reported preference for a Sunday night game on broadcast television as opposed to Monday.

Because of that, Monday Night Football will move to ESPN, with the cable network paying a large sum of $1.1 billion per year from 2006 to 2014 for the rights to the lucrative franchise. The cable network's coverage will begin at 7 p.m. ET with a 90-minute pregame show, hosted by Chris Berman, Tom Jackson, Michael Irvin, and Steve Young. The game will then begin at 8:30 p.m.. Joe Theismann, Mike Tirico and Tony Kornheiser will be in the broadcast booths for the games, while Suzy Kolber and Michele Tafoya will host from the sidelines. Also, Stuart Scott will host the halftime show, originating from ESPN's studios in Bristol, Connecticut. In addition, other shows such as SportsCenter and Pardon The Interruption will be on location from the site of the game that week.

Meanwhile, NBC, after losing their AFC package to CBS in 1997, has reclaimed its share of the NFL broadcast rights with a deal worth an average of $650 million per year from 2006 to 2012. This new deal will give them the Sunday night package, which they will rename as Football Night in America, as well as the Super Bowl in 2009 and 2012, a likely means of reversing its current ratings slump. NBC's coverage also includes the Pro Football Hall of Fame Game, two other pre-season games, the first two Wild Card playoff games of each postseason, and the annual Thursday opening Kickoff Game. The network will also have flexibility in selecting games in the final seven weeks of the season, consulting with the league and both CBS and Fox as to move one game to the primetime spot in November and December.

Bob Costas is scheduled to be the host of the pregame show, with Cris Collinsworth as his co-host. Currently, they serve as co-hosts of HBO's Inside the NFL, and would likely continue in their present posts. Al Michaels has been signed to do play-by-play announcing for the games, while John Madden has been signed to be the game's color commentator. Former Pittsburgh Steeler running back Jerome Bettis has been named to the pregame show's cast. Andrea Kremer will serve as the sideline reporter, and will also contribute to the studio show. [3] The pregame program will air at 7 p.m. ET and the game coverage will follow at 8:15 p.m. ET.

In addition, the network that carries the Super Bowl will also broadcast the Pro Bowl on the Saturday night following the championship game. In the calendar year 2007, CBS will broadcast both games, followed by Fox in 2008, and NBC in 2009.

Meanwhile, the NFL created a separate package of games to air on its own specialty channel, the NFL Network, which the league launched in 2003. The eight-game package will consist of primetime games airing from Thanksgiving to the end of the regular season on Thursday nights (five games) and Saturday nights (three games, after the end of the college football season). Bryant Gumbel and Cris Collinsworth will broadcast the NFL Network games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_on_television

Thanks for the details fredfa..

Perhaps I'm a little bitter that MNF has moved to a cable channel. Although I have cable tv, this definetly is a big downside for those that don't have or can't afford cable tv. I like/want all the regular season nfl games to stay on network channels, but I guess that's just not the way business goes, oh well.

Like I was saying, I'm certainly not debating the greed of TWC. I was simply pointing out that the nfl has gotten greedy over the years. TWC is clearly keeping an eye on profits, but I just happen to find it a little ironic how the nfl is criticizing TWC in this scenario, and how people are defending the nfl w/o thinking of the scenario. As far as I'm concerned, the pot (nfl) is calling the kettle (TWC) black. Both companies are greedy trying to push their profits, and this outcome should be no surprise. IMO, the consumer loses out either way since we're the ones paying for it. :rolleyes:

The reality is that, for all intents and purposes, MNF actually moved to Sunday night. ESPN is still stuck with the same low priority when it comes to game selection (that they had with SNF) despite the mega bucks paid.

The NFL is certainly taking advantage of the greed in the marketplace, but I draw a distinct line between a company that is profitting from their product value being radically inflated and the feeding frenzy caused by a system that allows all takers to reach into the customers pockets via their providers without any significant demand for the product they are offering.

In this case, the NFL is taking advantage of both sides of the equation. I'll accept that if it accelerates the demise of the system that has been widely exploited by everyone else.

Sports On TV
NFL Net Still Benched on Time Warner
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 8/3/2006

At almost 6 p.m. Thursday, Time Warner had not yet restored the NFL Network to its newly acquired Adelphia and Comcast systems as it sought some avenue of appeal.

At about 10:30 a.m., the FCC let the press know it had ordered Time Warner to restore the network to those systems "immediately," An FCC spokeswoman was trying to determine at press time what "immediate" meant precisely, what appeal process Time Warner might have, and what the FCC's recourse for noncompliance might be.


This is hilarious, I have this image of an ant(the FCC) standing on it's hind legs waving it's arms at The Jolly Green Giant(Time-Warner) demanding that TW submit to it's will.

The fact that the FCC is trying to decipher the meaning of the word "immediate" just goes to show how impotent the FCC really is, they're just shuffling around trying to look as if they have some control over the situation. What is the FCC going to do, levy a fine on TW? A million, two million? Time-Warner grossed over 1 billion last year. Time-Warner will do what Time-Warner wants to do when they get good and ready to do it, no doubt they have weighed the consequences of defying the FCC and have chosen their path.

Oh yeah, the FCC is who allowed media companies to get so big that they can virtually do what they want and barely feel the pain when they get their hand slapped.

Hey get Sirius Satellite Radio.

I get all the NFL games, both set of announcers(Home and Away), A 24 hour NFL Radio Network, plus tons of other goodies, for just under $13.00/month($143/year).

I will not miss a single game. :) ;)

Plus, I get about 5-6 games a week of NFL football on TV.

Not too mention all the college football on Saturday, and during the week.

Plus, more games on Satellite Radio if need be.

Woo Hoo!!!!

It is A la carte time IMHo for cable/satellite.

We will see how "popular" everybody thinks things are, really if this happens.

But it is just a pipe dream. I doubt it ever will.

And I love football/baseball/boxing/hockey/golf/etc... by the way.

But that is because, for the most part, it is free, or it comes in the basic/analog package. I don't like it so much I am willing to pay a crazy amount for it.

But others do, and that is there perogitive.

Can't argue with anyone named STEELERSRULE especially from the best part of PA. :)

And as of 10 PM ET in the newly minted Time Warner Cable/former Adelphia area in Northeast Ohio, there is still no NFL Network, and still the message referring to NFLGetReal.com.

It doesn't sound like TWC is in any hurry. It appears they are going to see if they can appeal and keep it off.

One might point out that TWC carries the golf channel on the basic tier. To be consistent, this should be moved to the sports tier or the NFL needs to be on the basic tier.


I think of all the arguments this is the best one by far, and easily the best comparison. At the same time I cant help but think that the NFL is is using strong arm tactics to get its point across.

Comcast has an ownership stake in The Golf Channel, along with E! Entertainment Television, Style Network, OLN, G4, AZN Television, PBS KIDS Sprout, TV One and four regional Comcast SportsNets.
And Time Warner has ownership of CNN, Headline News, TNT, TBS, etc.
These big boys don't want to ruffle each other's feathers.

I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to admit that this isn't about profits also.. The 85-95 cent sub fees for the nfl channel would definetly cut into profits, but demanding that they should be on the regular package or result in a crazy $2+ charge per sub is ridiculous. They're essentially forcing cable providers to add this channel on the regular programming.

All those other channels aren't on the sports tiers because they're cheap. I personally don't enjoy getting raped by ESPN but it certainly seems like some people don't mind on here. I'm all for a la carte pricing, but that's not a reality so I have to live with it. Paying ~$5/month to ESPN alone is a huge ripoff if you don't watch that channel. I do watch the channel, but I would certainly be pissed if I had to pay for a channel that I never watched (female households?).

Either way, if someone has some actual facts regarding ESPN's MNF contract, please present them. So far it just seems like lots of hearsay. My understanding is that the NFL hiked the fees, and ESPN came up w/ a number that they could agree on. PERIOD. Some people make it seem as if ESPN just said "Here's 1 billion dollars, I know you only wanted 750million, but what's 250million?" Which is absolute BS. If you really think that's how it was, you should pull your head out of the sand.

My point was that the NFL is a greedy company, which I don't understand why people choose to defend endlessly (perhaps people work for them on here?). The EA deal was pure greed, and the forcing of cable companies to include their channel at 85-95 cents or a steep $2+ on a sports package just reinforces that idea. I'm not naive/stupid enough to believe that TWC isn't looking out for its own wallet, but the NFL should just allow this channel to be added to a sports package for the "normal" 85-95 cents.

I suppose it's a tie in the greed category between the NFL and Time Warner, eh?

NFL's Cable Channel May Pose Challenge to ESPN, CBS (Update1)

Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The National Football League, which became the world's richest sports league mainly through multibillion-dollar television contracts, may be maneuvering to challenge its biggest benefactors.

The league's own two-year-old cable channel, the NFL Network, might emerge as a competitor to Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN 24-hour sports network within the next decade by showing more live games each week, according to former media executives. Already, the NFL has withheld eight games this season for live broadcast on its own round-the-clock network.

The NFL, based in New York, will receive about $3.74 billion of its $6 billion in revenue this season from television rights agreements with CBS Corp., General Electric Co.'s NBC, ESPN, News Corp.'s Fox and DirecTV. Most networks lose money on the contracts and use the games to promote other programming.

``There will come a time when these publicly owned networks can no longer justify the losses from an NFL package, and the league starts carrying their own package of games like CBS or NBC is doing now,'' said Jim Spence, a former senior vice president at ABC Sports, and now president and executive producer of New York-based Sports Television International.

The network, which is available in 41 million of the 91 million U.S. homes with cable, can give the league leverage it never had before to boost revenue on several fronts.

Subscriber Fees

``Once they get in 80 million or 90 million homes, they'll be profiting from both subscriber fees and ad revenue, plus there will be the potential to provide a pay-per-view package down the road,'' Spence said. ``This isn't going to stay small.''

Last week, the league said it would spend $100 million in the next six months to pressure more cable companies to carry its programming.

It's also fighting Time Warner Cable, the No. 2 U.S. cable operator, to restore some customers. Time Warner Cable pulled the NFL Network from systems in Cleveland, Dallas and Buffalo, New York, Aug. 1 after it acquired the systems from Adelphia Communications Corp. and Comcast Corp.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission yesterday ordered Time Warner Cable to reinstate the NFL Network, saying it was part of a negotiating tactic. Time Warner has an Aug. 15 deadline to respond to the NFL's complaint.

The NFL Network says it will show 52 preseason games, eight regular-season games, plus pre-game and post-game analysis during the regular season and playoffs, weekly highlights and re-runs of the best games each week.

The NFL regular season starts Sept. 7 with the Miami Dolphins at the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Expansion, Not Competition

NFL spokesman Seth Palansky said the league intends to expand on the NFL Network's coverage, not compete with its rights holders.

``Nothing has changed the NFL landscape,'' he said in an interview. ``The NFL network is a complementary service. It benefits all our TV partners by helping whet the appetite of fans. More fans is good for everyone.''

The NFL held back the eight regular-season games when it negotiated new television rights contracts last year. At the time, Commissioner Paul Tagliabue would say only that the NFL Network had developed so rapidly, ``the time had come to add live regular season games to the programming.''

The league is trying to improve quality by adding personalities including game announcer Bryant Gumbel, a former sports broadcaster who was co-host of NBC's ``Today Show.''

Impact on ESPN

ESPN would likely be affected most by a stronger NFL Network, said Stephen Solomon, owner of SJS Sports, a sports- media consulting firm based in New York and a former executive at ABC Sports.

``The NFL could hold back some of the rights they gave ESPN and that would be detrimental,'' Solomon said. ``The draft coverage is a perfect example.''

ESPN's current contract includes two days of coverage of the annual two-day NFL draft, where teams take turns picking players leaving college football. The event once drew the interest of only the most ardent football fans. ESPN, which began broadcasting it in 1980, has turned the draft into a 48-hour extravaganza, providing analysis and highlights of each pick.

NFL Draft

The NFL Network started a similar selection show this year and could take the package away from ESPN as early as 2013.

``I think there is an understanding that the league has benefited from a deep and broad relationship with ESPN,'' said John Wildhack, ESPN's senior vice president of programming, acquisitions and strategy. ``But clearly, economics are the driving factor in future business decisions.''

Spokesmen at Fox, CBS, and NBC said executives were either unavailable or declined to be interviewed for this story.

While the NFL Network is poised to grow, the league would be taking a chance in trying to replace ESPN, said former CBS Sports President Neal Pilson, now a New York-based industry consultant. Without ESPN, the league would have to sell $750 million to $1 billion in advertising to offset what ESPN is paying, ``and the risk would shift back to the NFL.''

Spence said fans need to remember the first rule of business: follow the cash.

``It's all about the money,'' Spence said. ``The league will go where they believe they can make the most money. Is that an eight-game package, or a full-season package? Is it pay-per-view? Everyone is still trying to figure it out.''

Time Warner Reinstates NFL Net
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/4/2006 8:42:00 AM

As of midnight,Time Warner complied with the FCC's order to put the NFL Network back on in systems it has just acquired from Comcast and Adelphia, but it has appealed the order to the full commission and has begun running a crawl on the channel warning viewers it may take it off again.

The FCC had issued its order Thursday morning, but Time Warner held off complying while it considered its options for appeal.

Time Warner had pulled the network from the new systems Aug. 1, with the NFL Network immediately asking the FCC for relief,saying the move could cause irreparable harm and saying Time Warner had not given the requisite 30-day notification.

The FCC's Media Bureau concluded that the NFL had made a sufficiently strong case to justify the order and that it was in the public's interest to see the games, particularly as the pre-season begins and viewing patterns are set.

The two sides have been in a battle over terms of carriage of the network, including the price and where the network would be carried, in a sports tier, as Time Warner wants, or on the basic package, where the NFL Network wants to be.

Time Warner released a statement Friday:

"At midnight last night, Time Warner Cable reinstated the NFL Network on those systems it earlier this week acquired from Adelphia and Comcast, where the network had been available.

"The channel appears in the same position and tier as it did before it was removed three days earlier. Time Warner Cable still does not have a license agreement to carry the network, but has put the channel back on its systems in order to comply with the FCC's Order issued by its Media Bureau yesterday.

"Because we still do not have a contract with the NFL Network, we have also begun the official 30 day-notification period with an on-screen crawl that began running last night at midnight alerting our customers that the network may be withdrawn again should we not be able to conclude an agreement with the NFL Network.

"Time Warner Cable believes that the Media Bureau's Order is wrong as a matter of law. Accordingly, last night we filed papers with the FCC appealing the Order to the full Commission.”

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6359461.html?display=Breaking+News

While the NFL Network is poised to grow, the league would be taking a chance in trying to replace ESPN, said former CBS Sports President Neal Pilson, now a New York-based industry consultant. Without ESPN, the league would have to sell $750 million to $1 billion in advertising to offset what ESPN is paying, ``and the risk would shift back to the NFL.''

Hardly the risk they make it out to be. MNF generated about $400 million in advertising revenue for ABC. Assuming NFL Network reaches its 90 million sub goal, they should easily generate over $300 million from ad sales. Subtract that from the $1 billion in lost ESPN rights fees, and the NFL Network would need less than a $0.65 per sub carriage fee increase to break even.

Whether that comes from an increase from $0.90 to $1.55 for the NFL Network, or a combination of a rate increase and required additional channel(s) to be carried - it is more than reasonable for the NFL to assume that it could be easily accomplished with a lineup that includes the Thur/Sat 8-game package along with MNF.

Does anyone know if the Thursday night games the NFL Network will show will be in HD anywhere on DirecTV? It's not related to the topic at hand, but I wasn't sure where else to post the question. Thanks.

are you talking about NFL network or NFL HD network? if you get one, does that mean you get the other too? on our cable system, we get NFL network but no NFL HD... well i cant tell because i dont have the digital cable package but from my experience everything HD has a D in the channel name.
In May my cable company said for sure we will have NFL HD in July, well here in AUG they now say OH NO we will not get the HD channel NFL rasied their fee too much right before signing.

That sucks who knows if thats the truth I thought since we do NFL NET we would for sure get their HD channel also but we arnt.

I’m hoping this will all be resolved and carriage deals are stuck and Time Warner adds NFL Network and it’s HD version to the line up. I would like to call myself a huge NFL fan, but in comparison to others I’m not, I just like catching games and gluing myself to NFL Primetime and SoprtsCenter. I never watched the NFL Network when I had DirecTV, but now that they’ll have a handful of games, I’d watch it.

It doesn’t matter if it’s added to the digital tier or sports tier. Infact I say add it to the Sports Tier to avoid everyone’s price from increasing. I have the Sports Tier, it’s only an extra $1.95 a month (used to be $4.95). Just add NFL Network to that and charge $2.95. Have the Sports Tier a requirement to get NFL Network HD. NBA TV is in the Sports Tier, I don’t see why NFL Network shouldn’t be. I don’t actually watch anything in the Sports Tier, not a fan of the NBA or college sports which is what most of the package consists of, but it’s only two bucks for seven channels, so I figured what the hell.

It doesn’t matter if it’s added to the digital tier or sports tier.

It matters to the NFL - a whole lot.

Comcast seems to have it on the digital tier AND sports tier, since I get it without the sports tier. Same with NBATV. (Currently no NFL HD, however.)

TW goes to Court Monday morning.....

TW goes to Court Monday morning.....

So, they (TWC) are willing to spend a ton of money in litigation but not on a carriage agreement with the NFL ... that makes a lot of sense (NOT).

And, why are they going to court? Oh yeah, I remember. They want to be able to yank the NFL Network immediately from their "new" customers that were absorbed from Adelphia and Comcast ... instead of giving the 30 days notice mandated by the FCC.

Now, the ex-Adelphia and ex-Comcast subs can join the ranks of us existing TWC customers who have been pissed for years. And, if you think you'll be pissed in 30 days when the NFL Network suddenly goes away (again), along with ESPN2HD/ESPNU, etc. ... wait until you get your first TWC bill and realize you're paying (a lot) more for (a lot) less.

Oh yeah, I forgot- you now get TNTHD. Hmmm- I wonder who owns TNTHD?

BTW ... all of you who are hung up on the issue of where the NFL Network is placed (on a sports tier vs. basic digital cable)-- drop that, please. This has nothing to do with the real issue. It's just TWC's way of diverting attention to the real reason why there is no carriage agreement ... MONEY. Answer these questions:

1. If it's a matter of being on a sports tier, then why is the GOLF CHANNEL, OLN, and the SPEED CHANNEL on basic digital cable? Using TWC's logic ... why should non-Nascar customers have to pay for the Speed Channel ... hmmm?

2. Yes, the NFL's asking price is high- but, that didn't stop both satellite companies (and, no, posg- there is no "sweetheart" deal ... they were just smart enough to sign up early) and 75 cable companies from providing the NFL Network ... did it?

3. Do you really think this is going to be resolved? Please ... TWC will dig in their heels, like a spoiled child and not budge. They could care less how pissed their subs are, and how many eventually leave.

They want to be able to yank the NFL Network immediately from their "new" customers that were absorbed from Adelphia and Comcast ... instead of giving the 30 days notice mandated by the FCC.

What's great is TW wants to pull NFLN immediately and on the opposite side (I'm in a market that just got rebranded to Comcast) they will take their sweet time to switch to Comcast programming (w/NFLN).

It's heart-warming how veraciously they're "protecting the consumer" :(

And, why are they going to court? Oh yeah, I remember. They want to be able to yank the NFL Network immediately from their "new" customers that were absorbed from Adelphia and Comcast ... instead of giving the 30 days notice mandated by the FCC.

you're forgetting, they are doing it to protect the customers! If people start getting used to being given channels that everyone else has, then it will just be more disappointing for them when they found out that this is just a one off.

3. Do you really think this is going to be resolved? Please ... TWC will dig in their heels, like a spoiled child and not budge. They could care less how pissed their subs are, and how many eventually leave.

Perhaps this is one for the United Nations to resolve.....
Then perhaps not. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

FCC Denies Time Warner Request to Delay NFL Network Return

Aug. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Federal Communications Commission denied Time Warner Cable's request for a delay in reinstating the NFL Network on some recently acquired cable systems.

Time Warner Cable, the second-largest U.S. cable operator, asked the FCC to stay a decision reached by the commission last week that ordered the Time Warner Inc. unit to reinstate the NFL Network on cable systems it acquired from Adelphia Communications Corp. and Comcast Corp., No. 1 in the U.S.

Time Warner had removed the NFL Network from cable systems on Aug. 1, saying negotiations over terms for carriage failed. The FCC found that New York-based Time Warner hadn't given subscribers the required 30-day notice of a change and ordered the company to immediately reinstate the channel. Today the FCC said it would stand by its order.

``Time Warner's subscribers have paid their bills for August with the expectation that they will be able to view the NFL Network,'' wrote the FCC, adding that if the order is delayed, ``those expectations would be thwarted.''

Time Warner said on Aug. 4 that it had reinstated NFL Network, which plans to show 54 preseason games and eight regular-season primetime games this season.

Shares of Time Warner, the world's largest media company, fell 20 cents to $16.36 at 10:50 a.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. They declined 5 percent this year before today.

Time Warner Must Keep Running NFL, Says FCC
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/7/2006 12:55:00 AM

The FCC says Time Warner must continue to air the NFL Network while the commission considers a complaint from the network that Time Warner did not give it sufficient notice before pulling the network off systems it just acquired in its deal to split up Bankrupt Adelphia with Comcast.

The Commission Monday denied Time Warner's petition to stay its decision to force carriage, as well as its request to reconsider the Media Bureau decision, or refer it to the full commission. The FCC has concluded buth that the NFL is likely to win on the merits and becuase it says that the network has made a case that it could suffer irreparable harm if viewers didn't get to see the pre-season games it has in profusion--over 50.

Time Warner could now likely take the commission to court, though it has made no decision. It said last week it would explore all avenues of appeal, and the FCC avenue has now been closed.

The dispute is over price and placement on Time Warner systems of the NFL Network. The Network wants to be on expanded basic, while Time Warner wants to place it on a sports tier. As part of basic, it could raise the rate of the tier by a dollar for everyone who wants the tier, not just those sports fans who can't get enough NFL.

"Time Warner Cable continues to believe that the FCC has misconstrued the notice rules and has ordered a remedy that is in clear violation of the First Amendment," the company said in response. "The FCC's action has resulted in exascerbating, not avoiding, consumer confusion."

"We are reviewing the decision and considering our options," said spokesman Mark Harrad.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6360007.html?display=Breaking+News

"We are reviewing the decision and considering our options," said spokesman Mark Harrad.


Wold this be the same as screw the customer? :D

when a massive cable company has to use the first amendment as a defense to not provide a service, that's just pitiful.

What next for TWC? - "the CEO's mom, said the FCC are not being nice and we shouldn't have to play with NFL if we don't want to! Nah nah nah."

when a massive cable company has to use the first amendment as a defense to not provide a service, that's just pitiful.

What next for TWC? - "the CEO's mom, said the FCC are not being nice and we shouldn't have to play with NFL if we don't want to! Nah nah nah."

I tend to be a little left of center and even I can see the logic of not having the federal government dictate what programming a broadcaster or cable company should have to have, or can't have, etc.

First Amendment is a typical defense in similar legal situations.

I tend to be a little left of center and even I can see the logic of not having the federal government dictate what programming a broadcaster or cable company should have to have, or can't have, etc.

First Amendment is a typical defense in similar legal situations.


All the Feds are saying is that TWC can't take away a channel from customers that was present without 30 days notice. After the 30 days they can take it away. They aren't forcing them to carry the channel forever just a certain amount of time so consumers can make a decision.

I tend to be a little left of center and even I can see the logic of not having the federal government dictate what programming a broadcaster or cable company should have to have, or can't have, etc.

First Amendment is a typical defense in similar legal situations.

I disagree. 30-day notice is a reasonable consumer protection and is hardly "dictating" what programming a cable company must carry. Think of it as a "contract" that renews month to month. In exchange for my monthly bill the cable company agrees to deliver a package of channels. If the cable company doesn't want to deliver that package of channels in next months "contract" they are free to do so, but I am also free to seek another provider that will sell me an acceptable package of channels.

I tend to be a little left of center and even I can see the logic of not having the federal government dictate what programming a broadcaster or cable company should have to have, or can't have, etc.

First Amendment is a typical defense in similar legal situations.It's kind of hard to disagree, especially in terms of an individual cable channel. However, cable operators tend to be seen more as public utilities than as members of "the press." In fact, they tend to be seen as monopolies, even though there are other choices such as satellite, FiOS, or just sticking with the antenna.

Anyway, if you'd like to read the FCC's full order, it's here (in .pdf). (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1594A1.pdf)

TV Notebook
FCC Rejects Time Warner’s NFL Appeal
By Ted Hearn Multichannel News 8/7/2006

The Federal Communications Commission Monday reaffirmed last Thursday’s ruling that Time Warner Cable had to carry NFL Network for 30 days on systems just acquired from Comcast and Adelphia Communications.

Last Friday, Time Warner threatened to take the FCC to court if the agency didn’t back down and allow it to drop NFL Network. Following the release of the FCC’s second decision, Time Warner did not commit to a court fight over the need to provide consumers a 30-day notice before deleting a channel.

"Time Warner Cable continues to believe that the FCC has misconstrued the notice rules and has ordered a remedy that is in clear violation of the First Amendment. The FCC's action has resulted in exacerbating, not avoiding, consumer confusion,” Time Warner spokesman Mark Harrad said. "We are reviewing the decision and considering our options."

Time Warner and NFL Network have never had a carriage agreement, but the network had deals with Comcast and Adelphia systems that Time Warner obtained July 31 when the $16.9 billion Adelphia transaction closed.

Time Warner dropped NFL Network on those systems Aug. 1. Claiming that it gave Time Warner the necessary 30 days to issue the proper consumer notices, NFL Network complained to the FCC within hours that it had been illegally removed by Time Warner.

The second FCC ruling was again issued by Media Bureau chief Donna Gregg, an appointee of FCC chairman Kevin Martin. Time Warner may ask the five FCC commissioners to overturn Gregg’s rulings as an alternative to an immediate court challenge, which Time Warner has said would involve important First Amendment issues.

Time Warner and the National Football League have been haggling over terms of carriage, with the network seeking an expanded-basic position but Time Warner hoping to start a sports tier with NFL Network as a key driver of mini-tier penetration.

“We plan to continue discussions with Time Warner about the long-term carriage of NFL Network. In the meantime, we are pleased that NFL fans will continue to have access to our 'insider' coverage of NFL training camps and the preseason as a result of this ruling,” the NFL said in a statement.

In her 15-page order, Gregg said Time Warner’s treatment of NFL Network was “disappointing” because FCC members and outside parties “had expressed serious concern about the impact that the Adelphia transactions would have on unaffiliated programmers.”

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6360259

The FCC did the right thing IMO.

30 days gives people the time they need to invest in other alternatives while getting what they paid for, as stated above. It could also give TW the opportunity to tighten up and hammer out a deal.

I think we are all forgetting a major point here.

The FCC just days ago approved the massive takeover of Adelphia by TWC and Comcast and the concurrent swap of millions of cable customers by the two giants.

They agreed to binding arbitration in the case of disputes involving independent networks (that is, not owned by each other) and especially sports networks.

This move was an aorrgoant, direct in your face insult to the four FCC mmissioners who approved the Adelphia deal, and to the Aderphia (or Comcast) subs who were suddeny without a channel they had enjoyed.

I hope this might give the FCC at least a little pause as it rushes to allow media congolmerates to control even more stations/networks/subscribers.

I have the NFL Network thru Knology, still cant get any word on if they will add the HD channel yet.

Im holding out hope that its coming. Only because in my area Knology is always first, before Comcast and TWC to add available HD programming.

I think we are all forgetting a major point here.

The FCC just days ago approved the massive takeover of Adelphia by TWC and Comcast and the concurrent swap of millions of cable customers by the two giants.

They agreed to binding arbitration in the case of disputes involving independent networks (that is, not owned by each other) and especially sports networks.

This move was an aorrgoant, direct in your face insult to the four FCC mmissioners who approved the Adelphia deal, and to the Aderphia (or Comcast) subs who were suddeny without a channel they had enjoyed.

I hope this might give the FCC at least a little pause as it rushes to allow media congolmerates to control even more stations/networks/subscribers.
Exactly, it's a "thanks for all your help, now go sit at the back of the bus and get out of my way".

And to cut it off to subs who have already paid for it, depending on their billing period, is beyond belief--I don't suppose TW is going to give those subs a credit are they..??

Everyone shares in the blame. TWC, NFL, every other operator who created their own channel (MSG/YES/SNY here in New York) as well as every single fan. We put up with it, we go to the games and we buy $200 worth of food and stuff every time you go. They know they have us and if we don't go, someone else will. Unless every single person decided to go to the windows and yell "I'm not going to take it anymore", they will win. We get caught in the middle but we're enablers at the same time.

The only fair way to get this done is to allow multiple operators in the same market. No more forced monopolies. NJ and a few other states have the right idea by clearing the way for Verizon to offer their FIOS service. Now there will be true competition for service. Don't like TWC? Fine.. here's another choice!

And I also agree that eventually the NFL will withhold more games to charge more for their network. They already said they will make the deal more attractive to NBC by switching games. This is a precursor to them screwing their own partners. I'd be pissed if I was NBC and all of a sudden the best matchups are being pulled from my multibillion dollar deal.

There is no more loyalty except to the mighty dollar. Let's all stand in the parking lot and listen to the sound of an empty stadium. Pay the $20 for parking and bring all the food and beer for a weekly tailgate. At least you can stuff your friends in the trunk like it was a drive in movie and still only pay one price for the car... for now.

NJ and a few other states have the right idea by clearing the way for Verizon to offer their FIOS service. Now there will be true competition for service. Don't like TWC? Fine.. here's another choice!

ahh, I had a dream about that. Someday, someday ... <sniff>

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/sports/football/08sandomir.html?ref=sports

Much of this article has been stated before, but there's some interesting data:


"Time Warner quickly received 7,843 consumer complaints and 88 requests to be disconnected. The N.F.L. fielded another 22,000 complaints. Team owners must view the response as a dandy plebiscite on their channel."

=

That's a lot of complaints in a short ime period !

From a pure business strategy standpoint, I think TWC did the right thing. They escalated the impasse to a front burner status, forcing the press to cover it as news, which will lead to the opposing positions to be revealed to the general public.

What's sad is that the debate here has little to do with the real business issues and conduct of the parties. Opinions are aligned by virtue of whether or not the poster is a football fan or not. VERY SAD.

What's sad is that the debate here has little to do with the real business issues and conduct of the parties. Opinions are aligned by virtue of whether or not the poster is a football fan or not. VERY SAD.

Sorry, you're wrong. I have zero interest in watching the NFL Network or any other dedicated sporting channel and I'm still on their side.

Sorry, you're wrong. I have zero interest in watching the NFL Network or any other dedicated sporting channel and I'm still on their side.

Basically the sides are thus:

NFL says if you carry our channel, you have to put on basic and everybody pays.

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

It's not TWC refusing to carry the channel, but after all, IT IS THEIR STORE, and they should have a say so in how they merchandise it.

Does it not occur to you all that a subscriber that defects to DirecTV is ripe for buying NFL Sunday Ticket ??? Would the NFL not then prefer more homes with satellite access than cable access ??? Just food for thought.

Basically the sides are thus:

NFL says if you carry our channel, you have to put on basic and everybody pays.

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



First off ... I am an NFL fan, so I am biased.

I really believe that the channel positioning is a smoke screen. If that was the case, then why is the Golf Channel, Speed Channel, etc. on basic digital ... and, not on a sports only tier? For that matter ... why should I have to pay for CMT when I don't like country music? Why can't there be a music only tier?

It's all about money. The NFL wants it on basic digital ... just as whoever owns the Golf Channel and CMT do-- because there are more in-place subscribers. Why should they be relegated to a sports tier, when the NFL Network is not on sports only tiers on any other system. All satellite and cable providers (Comcast, Cox, yada yada yada) have the NFL Network on their basic digital tiers ... why should TWC be the exception?

Here is my biggest issue...WE (TWC subs) will begin missing nationally broadcast NFL games as soon as the NFL network begins broadcasting them. I don't have line of sight to satellite...so I have no way to see the games. To me, that bites...

First off ... I am an NFL fan, so I am biased.

I really believe that the channel positioning is a smoke screen. If that was the case, then why is the Golf Channel, Speed Channel, etc. on basic digital ... and, not on a sports only tier? For that matter ... why should I have to pay for CMT when I don't like country music? Why can't there be a music only tier?

It's all about money. The NFL wants it on basic digital ... just as whoever owns the Golf Channel and CMT do-- because there are more in-place subscribers. Why should they be relegated to a sports tier, when the NFL Network is not on sports only tiers on any other system. All satellite and cable providers (Comcast, Cox, yada yada yada) have the NFL Network on their basic digital tiers ... why should TWC be the exception?

The channels you mention probably cost the cable operator a dime if on basic and maybe a quarter on a tier. If NFLN was 25 cents or less, it would qualify to be on basic. The fact that they want nearly a dollar is the issue.

I think that that any channel desiring more than 50 cents/sub/month ought not to be part of a basic service package, but assigned to an optional tier. Otherwise, basic cable bills will continue to spiral out of control.

Here is my biggest issue...WE (TWC subs) will begin missing nationally broadcast NFL games as soon as the NFL network begins broadcasting them. I don't have line of sight to satellite...so I have no way to see the games. To me, that bites...

I suggest that you petition the NFL Network to allow TWC to carry the channel as an option for those who want it.

If the NFL really really really believed their product was that much in demand, they'd allow it to be marketed as an optional service. Fact is they know the truth. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If the NFL really really really believed their product was that much in demand, they'd allow it to be marketed as an optional service. Fact is they know the truth. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I believe that once the full public understands that they are missing actual NFL games because their cable company isnt carrying the channel, that demand will only increase from week to week.

I suggest that you petition the NFL Network to allow TWC to carry the channel as an option for those who want it.

If the NFL really really really believed their product was that much in demand, they'd allow it to be marketed as an optional service. Fact is they know the truth. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Which truth? That you're a TWC apologist? That truth? Pathetic.

I suggest that you petition the NFL Network to allow TWC to carry the channel as an option for those who want it.

If the NFL really really really believed their product was that much in demand, they'd allow it to be marketed as an optional service. Fact is they know the truth. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Again ... this (the petition web site) is a TWC smokescreen. They know that the NFL is not going to consider being put on a sports tier. Why would they? No other satellite or cable provider is allowed to do that. Why is TWC asking for something that no other provider has demanded?

Which truth? That you're a TWC apologist? That truth? Pathetic.

Yep ... our friend is definitely a TWC sychophant/apologist/cheerleader ... maybe even an employee.

Maybe TWC could put its own CNN, Headline News, CNNI, along with CNBC, MSNBC and Fox News on a special News tier. That would save customers money.
It would also be consistent with these foolish statements.
Then TWC could put TNT, USA, and a host of others on a special higher priced rerun tier. That would lots of customers money, too.
And to save those precious customers even more, there could be Turner Classic Movies, Lifetime Movies and a few others on the not-usually-premium-movie tier.
These guys use whatever argument seems to work best at the moment.
For the cable company with by far the highest average revenue per customer, any talk aboutsaving consumers money is just silly.
If it is worried about spending 90 cents or so for the NFL Network, TWC's screams will be really loiud when it has to renegotiate the deals for Fox News Channel. Until now FNC has been charging cable operators about half of the CNN 44 cents a month tariff.
But since it has been leading CNN in the ratings (usually doubling or tripling CNN's viewership) for five years, what would TWC say about a major price hike?
Like the product or not, a major price hike would certainly seem to be justified for FNC.
Or, the Time Warner might want, in the interest of protecting its consumers, to lower the monthly cost of CNN since fewer people are actually watching it.
Frankly, if I ran TWC, I would find a spokesman who didn't say such stupid things when baited by the NFL.

If the NFL really really really believed their product was that much in demand, they'd allow it to be marketed as an optional service. Fact is they know the truth. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Have you called or written to TWC about ESPN ?

This channel is one of the most expensive, if not 'the' most expensive channel that everyone is forced to pay for. What do you get for that, far less coverage of the U.S.A.'s top sport than what the NFL Network has and tons of hours wasted on junk sports.

I watch shows on the NFL channel every week. Considering that ESPN basically only covers the Draft between the Pro Bowl and start of training camps, I'd prefer to dump that channel during that time period.

Listen to any Sports Radio program and eventually you'll hear someone say that the NFL is the only Sport that is discussed year around. It is America's pastime.

It's not TWC refusing to carry the channel, but after all, IT IS THEIR STORE, and they should have a say so in how they merchandise it.

Sorry it is TWC refusal that's at issue here. If they value the customer more than their ego they would offer it exactly as everyone else does.

Either that or apply one rule to all channels, not just the ones they don't feel like offering. Why would everyone have to pay for NFL network on basic? It didn't push the rates up of Comcast or Dish higher than TWC. The basic rates didn't drop when TWC moved Speed channel to the sports pay-tier.

As for the Adelphia situation. 30 days notice. That's the rule. It's not costing them any financial burden to carry it for that period, it's just costing them their customer reputation.

A good story summing up what has happened so far:

TV Sports
NFL Network Gains Ground in Cable Battle
( Broadcasting & Cable)
By Richard Sandomir The New York Times August 8, 2006

The NFL Network figured that it went big time earlier this year when it added eight regular-season games to its schedule, a sweet benefit of being owned by the league of all leagues. Carrying games made the network more expensive to carry, but this was the N.F.L.’s channel, and what cable or satellite operator would dare resist the allure of those games?

Time Warner, that’s who. It has, for nearly three years, refused the NFL Network’s demand that it be carried only as an expanded basic channel, where most channels reside, and insisted that it would place the network on its sports tier, along with channels like NBA TV, for $1.95 to $4.95 a month.

In that way, Time Warner said, only those who wanted it would pay for it, rather than forcing everyone, sports fan or not, to pay. It’s an argument Cablevision pursued but lost during its epic battle with the YES Network.

For those who have not seen the NFL Network, some explanation is required. It is football, ad infinitum, a channel packed with studio programs and NFL Films productions; news conferences and replays of old games; preseason and N.F.L. Europe games; a few college bowl games; and the new Thursday and Saturday slate of games, which start Nov. 23. Bryant Gumbel will call all eight games, with Cris Collinsworth as the analyst on six, and Dick Vermeil on the others.

Sounds good, but not good enough for Time Warner, or other cable operators not yet among the channel’s 41 million subscribers, 27 million of whom come from the satellite services DirecTV and Dish Network.

Time Warner, which has 14.5 million subscribers, contends that for the sake of eight games (pruned from CBS, Fox and ESPN’s schedules) the NFL Network is gouging fans and that the value of those games is diminished by their availability to the participating teams’ markets on local broadcast stations, a practice that has not reduced the value of N.F.L. games on ESPN.

Time Warner created a Web site, nflgetreal.com, to tell consumers why a sports tier is a better option than forcing all subscribers to pay 70 cents a month (up from about 20 cents).

“Now, the NFL Network adds a mere eight games out of a 267-game schedule and asks for a 350 percent rate increase!” the Web site said. “That’s like paying an unproven rookie an All-Pro salary.” (Actually, it is 250 percent.) “The price is too high,” it adds, “the value too low.”

Last Tuesday, Time Warner demonstrated the ardor of its position. Having failed to reach a deal to carry the network, Time Warner removed it from the homes of 1.3 million customers recently added through the acquisition (with Comcast) of the bankrupt Adelphia Communications.

Time Warner quickly received 7,843 consumer complaints and 88 requests to be disconnected. The N.F.L. fielded another 22,000 complaints. Team owners must view the response as a dandy plebiscite on their channel.

Last Thursday, the media bureau of the Federal Communications Commission told Time Warner to restore what it had taken away.

Time Warner then asked the bureau to reconsider the ruling, but in its response yesterday, the F.C.C. division provided the NFL Network with everything it wanted. The bureau rejected all of the cable operator’s arguments, including one that being forced to carry a network abridges its First Amendment rights, calling it “force speech, plain and simple.”

More to the point, the bureau chided Time Warner for stripping the NFL Network from the menus of those 1.3 million subscribers without providing 30-day notice of such a change as required by federal cable law.

“If Time Warner believed that carrying the NFL Network or any other programming service for 30 days placed too onerous a burden on its First Amendment rights, then it should have sought a waiver of the commission’s rules or provided subscribers with 30 days’ notice,” the bureau ruled.

The two sides retreated to their corners yesterday.

“We commend the F.C.C.’s latest swift and thorough action,” the network said in a statement, and it praised the agency’s efforts to protect its fans.

Time Warner, also in a statement, said it still believed the F.C.C. had “ordered a remedy that is in clear violation of the First Amendment.”

The cable operator is contemplating its next move.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/08/sports/football/08sandomir.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

I wonder if any of these scumball Cable companies really want the Government to look closely at their business ?

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6360410.html

"Yet another scandal hit Cablevision as the family-controlled cable operator became the first major media company to be caught in scrutiny of backdating stock options to favor executives, acknowledging that it played games with stock awards from 1997 to 2002. "

=

Every time you turn over a rock, something crawls out !

Maybe TWC could put its own CNN, Headline News, CNNI, along with CNBC, MSNBC and Fox News on a special News tier. That would save customers money.
It would also be consistent with these foolish statements.
Then TWC could put TNT, USA, and a host of others on a special higher priced rerun tier. That would lots of customers money, too.
And to save those precious customers even more, there could be Turner Classic Movies, Lifetime Movies and a few others on the not-usually-premium-movie tier.
These guys use whatever argument seems to work best at the moment.
For the cable company with by far the highest average revenue per customer, any talk aboutsaving consumers money is just silly.
If it is worried about spending 90 cents or so for the NFL Network, TWC's screams will be really loiud when it has to renegotiate the deals for Fox News Channel. Until now FNC has been charging cable operators about half of the CNN 44 cents a month tariff.
But since it has been leading CNN in the ratings (usually doubling or tripling CNN's viewership) for five years, what would TWC say about a major price hike?
Like the product or not, a major price hike would certainly seem to be justified for FNC.
Or, the Time Warner might want, in the interest of protecting its consumers, to lower the monthly cost of CNN since fewer people are actually watching it.
Frankly, if I ran TWC, I would find a spokesman who didn't say such stupid things when baited by the NFL.

Nicely stated. I love the fact that TWC is being exposed in this whole ridiculous saga. If that's what it takes to get the NFL Network, ESPN2HD, etc. ... so be it. Otherwise, they will soon see subs leaving as their options begin to open up ... not that TWC cares.

Which truth? That you're a TWC apologist? That truth? Pathetic.

The truth that given the option, less than 20% of cable subscribers would pay $5.95 for a sports tier that included NFL Network. (Their own reasearch). And off season the numbers are much worse. THAT truth.

The truth that given the option, less than 20% of cable subscribers would pay $5.95 for a sports tier that included NFL Network. (Their own reasearch). And off season the numbers are much worse. THAT truth.

Why would anyone pay $6 for one channel they like especially when every other competitor gives it free to air?

TWC are hoping that dropping it in the sports tier would give them 20% extra revenue from those who would subscribe, versus 0% revenue from everyone who would watch it if it was free to air. And those numbers would be significantly higher than 20%.

In the same way that ESPNHD is included in the HD package to boost sub numbers, because unless you like reruns that package has nothing of real value.

Apparently there's no profit in customer satisfaction for TWC.

Yep ... our friend is definitely a TWC sychophant/apologist/cheerleader ... maybe even an employee.
Something I read that he typed on the Greensboro, NC local thread made me think that he is a TWC employee.

The truth that given the option, less than 20% of cable subscribers would pay $5.95 for a sports tier that included NFL Network. (Their own reasearch). And off season the numbers are much worse. THAT truth.

What's the point? What percentage do you suppose would subscribe to Lifetime, Spike, or any other individual channel on expanded basic?

I realize that this is just Knology and that most of you probably dont have access to their service but...

I called Knology this morning, they currently have the NFL Network on their "Digital Preferrred" programming tier. I asked them when they would start offering the NFLN-HD broadcast and I was told that Knology hasnt been offered the HD broadcast.

I called the NFLN today and left a message, hoping to get a call back. At 1:30 today I was called back by them and the man (i forget his name) told me that Knology has in fact been offered the HD broadcast and that they have yet to jump on board. He didnt speculate why. He also informed me that Knology, at this point does not have an agreement to show the slate of Thursday and Saturday games.

I have the option of Knology or TWC at my residence. Right now i believe im subscribing to the lesser of two evils.

What's the point? What percentage do you suppose would subscribe to Lifetime, Spike, or any other individual channel on expanded basic?

Not a TWC employee.

In answer to your question, very small percentage, which is why the programmers price the product to being consistant on a basic tier. They obviously deal in reality.

CPanther95, you're a champion for A La Carte. I would think you'd agree that any premium priced programming certainly doesn't belong in an entry level service package.

Fifty cents/sub/month needs to be the cap for a channel being in basic. Anybody else, including FOX News, ESPN, etc should at least be in an optional tier.

CPanther95, you're a champion for A La Carte. I would think you'd agree that any premium priced programming certainly doesn't belong in an entry level service package.

True, and if TWC shared my position, and were pushing for a la carte - they'd have my complete support. However, when they decided to support the practice of forced bundling, and forced tier placement - they have put themselves in the position of reaping what they sow.

Fifty cents/sub/month needs to be the cap for a channel being in basic. Anybody else, including FOX News, ESPN, etc should at least be in an optional tier.

I disagree, putting a price cap per channel is meaningless is there is no cap on the number of channels. 10 Discovery channels at $0.30 each causes more damage to our budgets than 2 channels at $0.75 each.

True, and if TWC shared my position, and were pushing for a la carte - they'd have my complete support. However, when they decided to support the practice of forced bundling, and forced tier placement - they have put themselves in the position of reaping what they sow.



I disagree, putting a price cap per channel is meaningless is there is no cap on the number of channels. 10 Discovery channels at $0.30 each causes more damage to our budgets than 2 channels at $0.75 each.

I'm not suggesting that a cable operator would be required to carry channels costing less than 50 cents, only that once a programmer crosses that threshold he can't require the cable operator to put his channel on basic.

So MSNBC might be in basic, while CNN and FOX might not. It would certainly make programmers take a closer look at how they price their product.

I'm not suggesting that a cable operator would be required to carry channels costing less than 50 cents, only that once a programmer crosses that threshold he can't require the cable operator to put his channel on basic.

So MSNBC might be in basic, while CNN and FOX might not. It would certainly make programmers take a closer look at how they price their product.

Except that the cable company will be required to carry those extra channels. If there was an arbitrary cap like $0.50, CNN would just fix their price at $0.50, add additional channels at $0.50, and then require carriage be "all or none".

posg,

I kinda see what you are trying to say. The problem is that you are defending a company (TWC) that created and in almost all cases defends the actions that the NFL is asking for. TWC can't fight a-la-carte on one hand and then demand that the NFLN be on just such a tier. TWC made this bed now they have to lay in it.

The problem in the past is that most broadcasters were too weak to beat the cable companies and had to abide to their demands. Aside from ESPN, which had Disney on it's side, can you think of the last time a broadcaster got the deal it wanted in dealing the cable companies.

On one side you have the most popular sport in the US vs a monopoly in an industry that most people can't stand. This is finally a time that some change can occur. Now if the NFL gets what it wants it won't change at all. But, what it does show is that the model that the industry uses is stupid. This message is getting out to the masses. People will start thinking: If TWC thinks it makes sense to put programming on tiers then why don't they do that for all of the channels?

I live in a TWC controlled area so I've been fustrated with them for a long while. That's the reason I switched to DirecTv. Many people can't just change service due to different issues and so few of us have a choice in cable companies. I'm hoping TWC loses this fight because I'm hoping it leads to change in the industry. I think you want the same thing you just don't want the entire system to be torn down.

So what happens when the NBA forms it's own channel, and MLB forms it's own channel, and the NHL forms it's own channel. They all have die hard fans. Just where does this stop ???

It stops when somebody says enough. We really don't need an entire 24/7/52 dedicated to any sport when high priced networks like ESPN are already starved for content.

posg,

I kinda see what you are trying to say. The problem is that you are defending a company (TWC) that created and in almost all cases defends the actions that the NFL is asking for. TWC can't fight a-la-carte on one hand and then demand that the NFLN be on just such a tier. TWC made this bed now they have to lay in it.

The problem in the past is that most broadcasters were too weak to beat the cable companies and had to abide to their demands. Aside from ESPN, which had Disney on it's side, can you think of the last time a broadcaster got the deal it wanted in dealing the cable companies.

On one side you have the most popular sport in the US vs a monopoly in an industry that most people can't stand. This is finally a time that some change can occur. Now if the NFL gets what it wants it won't change at all. But, what it does show is that the model that the industry uses is stupid. This message is getting out to the masses. People will start thinking: If TWC thinks it makes sense to put programming on tiers then why don't they do that for all of the channels?

I live in a TWC controlled area so I've been fustrated with them for a long while. That's the reason I switched to DirecTv. Many people can't just change service due to different issues and so few of us have a choice in cable companies. I'm hoping TWC loses this fight because I'm hoping it leads to change in the industry. I think you want the same thing you just don't want the entire system to be torn down.

The problem with most of these arguments is that they are based on the fictitious position that cable is a monopoly. IT IS NOT. You switched. Millions of households have. Over 90% of cable's footprint overlaps with TWO competators, DirecTV and DISH, and in more and more areas a competing landline competator.

Just because a few people can't access satellite (at least as many can't access cable) does not make cable as an industry a monopoly.

You've done exactly what needs to be done to impliment change. You've voted with your wallet. You've voted for change. If anyone here doesn't think that satellite has been a formidable competitor to the cable business, well, they're sadly mistaken. You wouldn't have DVR's and Digital Channels, and On Demand, and all the rest if there hadn't been serious competion.

PS The problem with A La Carte at this juncture is more technical than marketing. Can you imagine the logistics of providing set top boxes to EVERY TV in EVERY household. A La Carte may come, but not now.

So what happens when the NBA forms it's own channel, and MLB forms it's own channel, and the NHL forms it's own channel. They all have die hard fans. Just where does this stop ???

It stops when somebody says enough. We really don't need an entire 24/7/52 dedicated to any sport when high priced networks like ESPN are already starved for content.

Just an FYI that the NBA has had it's own channel for a couple years now. NHL talked about it but then they had the lockout and it never happened.

The problem with most of these arguments is that they are based on the fictitious position that cable is a monopoly. IT IS NOT...
Although it is not technically a monopoly, it is in fact an oligopoly (a market controlled by a small number of competitors). And in this case, high infrastructure costs act as a barrier to entry to other competitors wishing to enter the market. It is possible things may change if/when the Telcos begin providing TV service in enough markets. But until then ...

Mickey

So what happens when the NBA forms it's own channel, and MLB forms it's own channel, and the NHL forms it's own channel. They all have die hard fans. Just where does this stop ???

It stops when somebody says enough.

You're opinion is to draw the line in the sand now with the NFL. My opinion is now that they've been gorging themselves at our expense by forcing us to pay for 75 cablenets we couldn't care less about, let them stuff their faces until they finally burst. Then we'll get the correction so desperately needed.

After getting 3 Lifetimes, Logo, Oxygen - it's understandable that the NFL fan is upset that now is the time they stand up for our pocketbooks. :rolleyes:

So what happens when the NBA forms it's own channel, and MLB forms it's own channel, and the NHL forms it's own channel. They all have die hard fans. Just where does this stop ???

The Fan base for other Sports is not even close to the NFL.

From what I understand the NFL:

(1) Sunday Ticket (only on DirecTv) has more subscribers * than all the other Sports Packages combined, and they're available on nearly every Cable and DBS system.

(2) is in demand (ratings wise) by more Fans (by a wide margin) than all the others Sports combined.

(3) the NFL provides nearly all of ESPN's highest ratings year after year.

(4) the NFL is the Wealthiest (TV contracts and franchise valuations) Sports League in the World.

To say that that American public has chosen it's Top Sport is understatement. There's no comparison ithat can be made regarding this situation to what any other Sport may do in the future or is doing now !

=
* not to mention it costs more than any other Package.

PS The problem with A La Carte at this juncture is more technical than marketing. Can you imagine the logistics of providing set top boxes to EVERY TV in EVERY household. A La Carte may come, but not now.


The opportunity to make the change is only a few years away. In 2009 when digital broadcasting starts 24/7 and analog is off the demand for cable and sat will go up. I don't know about your cable system but TWC here converted all of the analog channels to digital. Anyone with a box gets the digital ones. The speculation is that once ota analog goes so does cable analog. They won't broadcast both signals when they can use the bandwidth for other things. With the boxes comes the ability to do a-la-carte. The cable companies can make enough boxes in 3 years for the demand in fact I think they're planning for it.

PS The problem with A La Carte at this juncture is more technical than marketing. Can you imagine the logistics of providing set top boxes to EVERY TV in EVERY household. A La Carte may come, but not now.
Just an FYI, data point, Star Choice in Canada seems to handle ALC fairly easy. BTW, they have NFL Network than can be purchased by itself(w/a basic sub) for $2.49CDN

https://secure.starchoice.com/english/store/signup_pr.asp
Star Choice - Store - Customize your TV experience

Wow, that's like us paying $2.22 for a Canadian Football subscription. ;)

PS The problem with A La Carte at this juncture is more technical than marketing. Can you imagine the logistics of providing set top boxes to EVERY TV in EVERY household. A La Carte may come, but not now.

Hmm, let's see... We'd need something like a nationwide mandated transition to digital signals. Perhaps one concluding on February 17, 2009...

Wow, that's like us paying $2.22 for a Canadian Football subscription. ;)
:D

It's interesting to see they offer per channel selections as low as 0.99 per channel on top of a $20 basic sub, so ALC can be done, it just depends on how it would work out for the individual and their choices. It is the most consumer friendly programming offers I've seen from any provider.

:D

It's interesting to see they offer per channel selections as low as 0.99 per channel on top of a $20 basic sub, so ALC can be done, it just depends on how it would work out for the individual and their choices. It is the most consumer friendly programming offers I've seen from any provider.

But, A-La-Carte is the first step on the march to SOCIALISM! (cue scary music) The scourge of universal health care is lurking right behind...

I think it would be moving away from socialism, wouldn't it? Right now we all have the same group of "free" channels that cost us a fortune. :)

But, A-La-Carte is the first step on the march to SOCIALISM! (cue scary music) The scourge of universal health care is lurking right behind...
Bring it on, I still have my Che posters... :p :D

I thought the American Taliban is all for this ?

The Fan base for other Sports is not even close to the NFL.

I heard that as well. Apparently there's some kind of big NFL game that does pretty well in the ratings ... MegaBall ... PowerBall ... SuperGame ... ah I forget the name. Something like that.

NFL Today, Take II: Network Modifies Ads
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/8/2006 6:51:00 PM

The battle between the NFL and Time Warner over carriage of the NFL Network is hotter than Washington in August, with the two sides exchanging blows like a couple of linemen when the referee's back is turned.

The NFL, which launched an aggressive marketing campaign to gain carriage on Time Warner systems, has modified some print and radio ads after Time Warner complained they misled readers and listeners, though the NFL disputes the cause and effect implied. One ad said: "If You Don't Get NFL Network, You'll Miss NFL Games"

"Yesterday, we asked the NFL Network to stop running false and deceptive print, radio and TV advertisements that imply Time Warner Cable customers will be unable to see home team games," Time Warner said in a statement, "As you know, this is not true since the NFL is licensing local games to broadcast stations. In response, the NFL Network has agreed to correct their advertising by adding a statement in the ads advising that the telecasts will be available on broadcast television in the participant teams' local markets.

THe NFL disputed that characterization and said it will "continue to run advertising that makes clear that Time Warner customers will miss NFL games that are available to customers of their competitors." But it also isn't interested in adding a lawsuit, with or without merit, to the list of contentious issues between the two.

In a letter from the NFL's lawyers to Time Warner Chief Counsel Michael Quinn, the network said the ads are "entirely truthful," and violate no consumer protection laws. "Nevertheless," NFL says, "we will be happy to add, on a rolling basis, a statement in the advertisements advising that the telecast will be available on broadcast television in the participants' teams' local markets subject to blackout restrictions."

The lawyers also countered that Time Warner ads in Dallas with the headline "Don't Worry Cowboys Fans, you won't Miss a Single Game," are misleading "in suggesting that Time Warner subscribers will not miss any NFL games when, in fact, there is no question that they will miss a number of the games telecast on NFL Network."

But speaking of referees, on another front, Time Warner is still mulling whether to take the FCC to court over its order to restore the NFL Network to Time Warner systems it just acquired from Adelphia and Comcast, which had been carrying the net.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6360754.html?display=Breaking+News

Just an FYI, data point, Star Choice in Canada seems to handle ALC fairly easy. BTW, they have NFL Network than can be purchased by itself(w/a basic sub) for $2.49CDN

https://secure.starchoice.com/english/store/signup_pr.asp
Star Choice - Store - Customize your TV experience


GEE WHIZ !!! WHO THOUGHT OF THAT ???

Reality check time:

90,000,000 cable/sat households @ 95 cents/month times twelve months.

Hmmm!!! Over a Billion Dollars a year. Not for a season of football. Eight games. You all have lost it.

This will all be academic in a few years when using Switched Digital Video the cable provider can accommodate multiple channels at once for each television in the home, in lieu of sending every single channel to every single television. This lends itself to an ala carte model. Something like CNN 1 cent/hr., ESPN 3 cents/hr., NFL game $20/game.

It's really beside the point that the NFL is the most popular sport. Believe it or not, the majority of the US public does not care about sports, especially regular season sports. It's that majority that will and does subsidize high channel costs for sports programming, which in this case was created by the league itself to sell on its own. Pure greed.

Now, this is not to say the NFL is any different than any other network. They're trying to get a buck (or a billion) wherever they can. Their pricing and high profile are just showcasing what is a problem with the proliferation of subsidized niche programming.

As a sports fan, I would want the ESPNs, the RSNs, and the NFL Network. I'd be interested to know what they would cost me in order to fund these stations at their current rate of income. I'd guess my bill would be pretty high, and I'm sure the sports subsidization outweighs that of other niche programming.

Anyway, I'd be willing to decide, based on value, what I would like to pay for as a sub. As with anything, I'd have to make choices, but if we could reverse the trend of every cable channel having a "family" of its own, I'd be for it. There is a point where enough is enough. And maybe under a la carte, the NFL would find that 8 regular season games are a better revenue generator as part of an existing network agreement.

Reality check time:

90,000,000 cable/sat households @ 95 cents/month times twelve months.

Hmmm!!! Over a Billion Dollars a year. Not for a season of football. Eight games. You all have lost it. Goodbye.

It's a battle of the titans (NFL) vs. the Titanic (TWC).

The schedule for the first week of games on the NFL Network

Air times for 2006 Week 1 preseason games
(All times eastern; HD indicates High Definition)

Friday, Aug. 11
1. Cleveland at Philadelphia -- 4 p.m.

Saturday, Aug. 12
2. NY Jets at Tampa Bay (HD) -- 10 a.m.
3. NY Giants at Baltimore -- 1 p.m.
4. Pittsburgh at Arizona (LIVE-Blacked out in competing team markets) -- 4 p.m.
NO HUDDLE -- Live whip-around show featuring action from 6 games -- 7 p.m.
(" No Huddle" Games: Buffalo vs. Carolina; Jacksonville vs. Miami; Kansas City vs. Houston; New Orleans vs. Tennessee; Dallas vs. Seattle; and Green Bay vs. San Diego)

Sunday, Aug. 13
5. Kansas City at Houston -- 11 a.m.
6. New Orleans at Tennessee (HD) -- 2 p.m.
7. Dallas at Seattle -- 5 p.m.
8. Jacksonville at Miami -- 11 p.m.

Monday, Aug. 14
9. Green Bay at San Diego -- 12 p.m.
10. Buffalo at Carolina -- 3 p.m.

Tuesday, Aug. 15
11. Chicago at San Francisco (HD) -- 3 p.m.

Wednesday, Aug. 16
12. Denver at Detroit -- 3 p.m.

==

Think of the millions of people who can not watch their favorite team(s).

* Remember, the NFL is the least 'Local' / most National of all Sports. And, yes, I know that these games are replays. That matters not at all to the vast horde of NFL Fans.

It's a battle of the titans (NFL) vs. the Titanic (TWC).

Great analogy:

Titans - Totally fictious mythology
Titanic - Still a multi-million dollar a year industry

:D :D :D

It's really beside the point that the NFL is the most popular sport. Believe it or not, the majority of the US public does not care about sports, especially regular season sports. It's that majority that will and does subsidize high channel costs for sports programming, which in this case was created by the league itself to sell on its own. Pure greed.

Now, this is not to say the NFL is any different than any other network. They're trying to get a buck (or a billion) wherever they can. Their pricing and high profile are just showcasing what is a problem with the proliferation of subsidized niche programming.

As a sports fan, I would want the ESPNs, the RSNs, and the NFL Network. I'd be interested to know what they would cost me in order to fund these stations at their current rate of income. I'd guess my bill would be pretty high, and I'm sure the sports subsidization outweighs that of other niche programming.

Anyway, I'd be willing to decide, based on value, what I would like to pay for as a sub. As with anything, I'd have to make choices, but if we could reverse the trend of every cable channel having a "family" of its own, I'd be for it. There is a point where enough is enough. And maybe under a la carte, the NFL would find that 8 regular season games are a better revenue generator as part of an existing network agreement.

All the sports networks have worked every conceivable revenue model upside down, inside out, and sideways. While they gloat about how popular they are, they also know that at the end of the day any model other than forced basic ends up making them less money.

Great analogy:

Titans - Totally fictious mythology
Titanic - Still a multi-million dollar a year industry

:D :D :D

I was thinking more ... rich and powerful (titans/NFL) vs. slow and doomed (Titanic/TWC).

All the sports networks have worked every conceivable revenue model upside down, inside out, and sideways. While they gloat about how popular they are, they also know that at the end of the day any model other than forced basic ends up making them less money.

I think everyone agrees with your last sentence.

Just curious ... what is your prediction as to what will ultimately happen? Will TWC add the NFL Network for all its subs? If so, when and will it be on basic or a sports only tier? Will TWC pull it again from the absorbed (Comcast/Adelphia) subs after the 30 FCC mandate is up?

Given it's history and attitude toward customer requests ... I believe TWC will continue their current position. What you have called "pragmatism" about adding new channels, I call greed and an utter disregard for their subscribers.

Of course, the NFL's asking price is outrageous. But, they do it ... because they can. And, the other cable and satellite providers know this and have signed on.

If TWC's stance with Sinclair Broadcasting is any indication, this issue may never get resolved.

I think everyone agrees with your last sentence.

Just curious ... what is your prediction as to what will ultimately happen? Will TWC add the NFL Network for all its subs? If so, when and will it be on basic or a sports only tier? Will TWC pull it again from the absorbed (Comcast/Adelphia) subs after the 30 FCC mandate is up?

Given it's history and attitude toward customer requests ... I believe TWC will continue their current position. What you have called "pragmatism" about adding new channels, I call greed and an utter disregard for their subscribers.

Of course, the NFL's asking price is outrageous. But, they do it ... because they can. And, the other cable and satellite providers know this and have signed on.

I seriously doubt we'll see a resolution this season. Time Warner will lose some subscribers as a result, but the impact will not be as great as absorbing the costs associated with NFLN.

Long term a "creative" deal will be struck that saves face for both parties. NFL Network will pay back monies in marketing support, Time Warner will raise rates slightly across several service levels to absorb and spread the costs, and perhaps NFL Network will "replace" some other basic programming that gets shuffled off to a tier.

But rest assured, neither party is going to simply cry "uncle". :D :D :D

If TWC's stance with Sinclair Broadcasting is any indication, this issue may never get resolved.

Another argument for another day. The Sinclair situation is not unique to TWC, however. Do you think that 10 hours a week of pass thru HD programming from WB is worth 50 cents per month for every household, HD or not ??? I don't, TWC doesn't, nor does most of the rest of the cable industry.

Another argument for another day. The Sinclair situation is not unique to TWC, however. Do you think that 10 hours a week of pass thru HD programming from WB is worth 50 cents per month for every household, HD or not ??? I don't, TWC doesn't, nor does most of the rest of the cable industry.


I dont want to shift the focus too far off topic so i will make this my final post about Sinclair. Sinclair owns our local FOX station, which i think, makes the stakes a bit higher than the WB.

I dont want to shift the focus too far off topic so i will make this my final post about Sinclair. Sinclair owns our local FOX station, which i think, makes the stakes a bit higher than the WB.

Sinclair wants cash for carriage of it's HD channels.

And just like the NFL, they want it paid based on the entire subscriber count, even though less than 20% of the households have HD capability.

It's not time to go there yet because once one channel gets cash, they'll all want cash.

It will be interesting to see what happens 2/17/09 when Sinclair's analog channels go away. Don't expect much movement before then.

Another argument for another day. The Sinclair situation is not unique to TWC, however. Do you think that 10 hours a week of pass thru HD programming from WB is worth 50 cents per month for every household, HD or not ??? I don't, TWC doesn't, nor does most of the rest of the cable industry.


To be completely honest here, "most of the rest of the cable industry" doesn't think any local channel's signal is worth anything.

Yet those channels offer network programming and local news and other programmking in the vast majority of cases which get people to sign up for cable in the first place. Without them there simply would be no cable industry.

It is no secret that 93% of DirecTV's customers, to use just one example, sign up for a local stations package and pay $5.95 a month. Obviously those subscribers -- more than 14 million of them -- feel there is value to the local stations and their "pass through" programming. And, of course, DirecTV and Dish actually pay the stations whose signals they carry -- and profit from.

For an industry whose tariffs have increased far more than the cost of living for over two dcades, having anyone in cable talk to consumers about "value" is like Paris Hilton lecturing on modesty.

(And let us not forget that TWC, as part owner of InHD, has been trying to charge DirecTV and Dish for every customer, HD or not.)

But it would be cruel to use the word hypocrisy about the TWC positions.

Cruel but accurate.

Another argument for another day. The Sinclair situation is not unique to TWC, however. Do you think that 10 hours a week of pass thru HD programming from WB is worth 50 cents per month for every household, HD or not ??? I don't, TWC doesn't, nor does most of the rest of the cable industry.
Just for Grins, Is there any TWC position you don't agree with ? :)

I seriously doubt we'll see a resolution this season. Time Warner will lose some subscribers as a result, but the impact will not be as great as absorbing the costs associated with NFLN.

Long term a "creative" deal will be struck that saves face for both parties. NFL Network will pay back monies in marketing support, Time Warner will raise rates slightly across several service levels to absorb and spread the costs, and perhaps NFL Network will "replace" some other basic programming that gets shuffled off to a tier.

But rest assured, neither party is going to simply cry "uncle". :D :D :D

TWC hasn't added any HD channels in 2 years, so I don't expect anything from them.

Just for Grins, Is there any TWC position you don't agree with ? :)

I'm strictly playing devil's advocate just to keep the discussion interesting.

My real feelings are that technologically TWC is an industry leader, their service offerings are on average ahead of most of the industry, and that their customer service is fair at best, but fair is actually pretty good in the industry.

As an cable industry veteran, I am more sympathetic to the real day to day constraints imposed by distant corporate offices and parent companies than John Q. Public.

Are they perfect? No. Are they trying? Very hard. Do they care about their customers and have pride in what they've accomplished? Much more than they get credit for.

To be completely honest here, "most of the rest of the cable industry" doesn't think any local channel's signal is worth anything.

Yet those channels offer network programming and local news and other programmking in the vast majority of cases which get people to sign up for cable in the first place. Without them there simply would be no cable industry.

It is no secret that 93% of DirecTV's customers, to use just one example, sign up for a local stations package and pay $5.95 a month. Obviously those subscribers -- more than 14 million of them -- feel there is value to the local stations and their "pass through" programming. And, of course, DirecTV and Dish actually pay the stations whose signals they carry -- and profit from.

For an industry whose tariffs have increased far more than the cost of living for over two dcades, having anyone in cable talk to consumers about "value" is like Paris Hilton lecturing on modesty.

(And let us not forget that TWC, as part owner of InHD, has been trying to charge DirecTV and Dish for every customer, HD or not.)

But it would be cruel to use the word hypocrisy about the TWC positions.

Cruel but accurate.

Cable would be more than happy to pay broadcasters if they were allowed to sell broadcast channels as optional service like the sat guys and make it a profit center rather than an expense.

Apples are red and oranges are, well, you know. :D :D :D

Reality check time:

90,000,000 cable/sat households @ 95 cents/month times twelve months.

Hmmm!!! Over a Billion Dollars a year. Not for a season of football. Eight games. You all have lost it.


Hey look, its the pathetic TWC apologist again. Hey genius, many people watch the NFL channel EVERY DAY. To say we'd be paying 95 cents a month for just 8 games is retarded...but then again it came from the person defending the customer-hating TWC.

Cable would be more than happy to pay broadcasters if they were allowed to sell broadcast channels as optional service like the sat guys and make it a profit center rather than an expense.

Apples are red and oranges are, well, you know. :D :D :D


Perhaps just like CNN, TBS or other TW channels are allowed to be sold as an optional service by TW? Not.

Hey look, its the pathetic TWC apologist again. Hey genius, many people watch the NFL channel EVERY DAY. To say we'd be paying 95 cents a month for just 8 games is retarded...but then again it came from the person defending the customer-hating TWC.
Hey, this is a open debate with different points of view on both sides.
Name calling takes the debate to a level that is not productive for anyone.
And I have met Posg, and I assure you he is no Genius. :)

D* is moving to including locals (SD & HD) at no additional charge in the basic packages. The only reason a separate package made sense before was because they weren't available to most. Now, I think they've crossed the 90% threshold.

I seriously doubt we'll see a resolution this season. Time Warner will lose some subscribers as a result, but the impact will not be as great as absorbing the costs associated with NFLN.

Long term a "creative" deal will be struck that saves face for both parties. NFL Network will pay back monies in marketing support, Time Warner will raise rates slightly across several service levels to absorb and spread the costs, and perhaps NFL Network will "replace" some other basic programming that gets shuffled off to a tier.

But rest assured, neither party is going to simply cry "uncle". :D :D :D

Unfortunately, I think you're right about it not being resolved. I also think that TWC is extremely foolish to not strike a deal ASAP. Not only will subs continue to drop them by the thousands, but with every second that this situation (with the NFL) remains in the headlines, they are getting crushed in the poll of public opinion (not that they care).

Hey, this is a open debate with different points of view on both sides.
Name calling takes the debate to a level that is not productive for anyone.
And I have met Posg, and I assure you he is no Genius. :)

I don't know what hurts worse, being called a "pathetic TWC apologist" or "no genius". :( :( :( . Maybe it was that thing my wife called me..... :D

Do they care about their customers and have pride in what they've accomplished? Much more than they get credit for.

I would like to see evidence of this. Beyond adding redundant VOD channels and switching to digital broadcasting, how has TWC improved the customer experience beyond barely keeping up with any other cable company?

They (and the money men) may be quite pleased with themselves that they can make your family photos viewable on TVs in Hawaii, but aside from the odd technical achievement in limited test markets what have they done for the customer in the last year?

Added more channels? Lowered rates? Turned pay channels into free channels? Increase capacity of the MOD servers so that it isn't overloaded on a busy night? Offered a specific widescreen MOD channel? Added ITV channels that actually work more than 50% of the time? Increase the speed of Road Runner beyond it's cableco competitiors for the same price? Fix the hardware issues with the DVRs?

I haven't seen any of that.

How they treated the Adelphia customers is going to take more than Expo on Demand to fix.

Is TWC the cable company that is putting up advertising bugs during a channel's programming in order to push VOD and/or other services?

Unfortunately, I think you're right about it not being resolved. I also think that TWC is extremely foolish to not strike a deal ASAP. Not only will subs continue to drop them by the thousands, but with every second that this situation (with the NFL) remains in the headlines, they are getting crushed in the poll of public opinion (not that they care).
If only you are right about the "thousands". Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

Is TWC the cable company that is putting up advertising bugs during a channel's programming in order to push VOD and/or other services?
Do they really do that? Sheesh, I thought TNT's self promotion crap was bad..wait a minute, that is Time/Warner... :p

Is TWC the cable company that is putting up advertising bugs during a channel's programming in order to push VOD and/or other services?

Not that I know of. Maybe in another market with better ITV features but not in my area.

Is TWC the cable company that is putting up advertising bugs during a channel's programming in order to push VOD and/or other services?

I've NEVER seen that here in Raleigh. If they ever do, I'll immediately jump ship and join the rest of the TWC Hate Crowd here.

I also think that TWC is extremely foolish to not strike a deal ASAP. Not only will subs continue to drop them by the thousands, but with every second that this situation (with the NFL) remains in the headlines, they are getting crushed in the poll of public opinion (not that they care).


According to the NYT article posted back a page or two:

"Time Warner quickly received 7,843 consumer complaints and 88 requests to be disconnected. The N.F.L. fielded another 22,000 complaints. Team owners must view the response as a dandy plebiscite on their channel."

Most people are 'merely' complaining so far. Of course that was last week before a significant number of people realized what was going on. I wonder what the totals are up to now ?

The confusion for many is that they will get their team&game on local tv. But they may not realize that when games are between two teams from other cities, they're screwed. That may take a while to sink in because of misleading TWC press releases.

Do they really do that? Sheesh, I thought TNT's self promotion crap was bad..wait a minute, that is Time/Warner... :p

Does Time Warner do this stuff on all of their channels? They do the same type of annoying self-promotion graphics on Cartoon Network!

Not that I know of. Maybe in another market with better ITV features but not in my area.

There was an article a few weeks ago where a cable executive was discussing the increased demand for one of their services (IIRC, it was the "rewind" service or whatever they call the replay of a primetime show - not VOD) due to pop up advertising. Might not have been TWC though.

There was an article a few weeks ago where a cable executive was discussing the increased demand for one of their services (IIRC, it was the "rewind" service or whatever they call the replay of a primetime show - not VOD) due to pop up advertising. Might not have been TWC though.

Well let's blame them anyway. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I've NEVER seen that here in Raleigh. If they ever do, I'll immediately jump ship and join the rest of the TWC Hate Crowd here.
It's Standing Room Only right now. I'll try and save you a spot but it's filling up quick. :)

There was an article a few weeks ago where a cable executive was discussing the increased demand for one of their services (IIRC, it was the "rewind" service or whatever they call the replay of a primetime show - not VOD) due to pop up advertising. Might not have been TWC though.
I know TIVO (for all their sycophants) are going to have it soon.
While you skip a commercial sit back and enjoy this commercial. :rolleyes:

I would like to see evidence of this. Beyond adding redundant VOD channels and switching to digital broadcasting, how has TWC improved the customer experience beyond barely keeping up with any other cable company?

They (and the money men) may be quite pleased with themselves that they can make your family photos viewable on TVs in Hawaii, but aside from the odd technical achievement in limited test markets what have they done for the customer in the last year?

Added more channels? Lowered rates? Turned pay channels into free channels? Increase capacity of the MOD servers so that it isn't overloaded on a busy night? Offered a specific widescreen MOD channel? Added ITV channels that actually work more than 50% of the time? Increase the speed of Road Runner beyond it's cableco competitiors for the same price? Fix the hardware issues with the DVRs?

I haven't seen any of that.

How they treated the Adelphia customers is going to take more than Expo on Demand to fix.

POSG will come up with something, I'm sure. But ... fact is, you're right. Poor customer service, the worst programming, always last in everything ... and most expensive (by far).

Does Time Warner do this stuff on all of their channels? They do the same type of annoying self-promotion graphics on Cartoon Network!
Pretty sure the only TW station I watch is TNT-HD, HBO doesn't do it of course, it's annoying as hell, little NASCAR pit crew guys and Deputy Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson wandering around the bottom of the screen, tacky doesn't even begin to describe it.

Don't forget Kyra Sedgwick shining that bright flashlight in your eyes and ducking under the crime scene tape. :eek:

[edit] just googled "Brenda Leigh Johnson" - same thing you're talking about keenan.

There was an article a few weeks ago where a cable executive was discussing the increased demand for one of their services (IIRC, it was the "rewind" service or whatever they call the replay of a primetime show - not VOD) due to pop up advertising. Might not have been TWC though.
It's Time Warner, it's called "Start Over",

http://blog.itvt.com/my_weblog/2005/11/time_warner_cab.html
[itvt] Bloggit: Time Warner Cable Launches "Start Over" Service

POSG will come up with something, I'm sure. But ... fact is, you're right. Poor customer service, the worst programming, always last in everything ... and most expensive (by far).

Why bother ???

I've posted several articles in the past comparing various cable operators, satellite and cable, telcos and cable, future technological initiatives, all of which indicate that TWC is an industry leader.

But unless they add worthless ESPN2HD and NFL Network to their lineup, nobody here is going to give them ANY credit for anything. It's the American Way.

I don't have a lot of problem if TWC wants to sell ads on a "new" service like that. Especially if they're not charging extra for "Start Over", which appears to be the case. If they charge for it AND do the ads, I'd be on the same bandwagon as others here.

We are not talking A) the original run programming live, or B) even inserting ads via the DVR. The latter is something TiVo is starting, but even those "ads" are basically static graphics that run when you FF/REW during ad breaks. I don't really like that, but I use the undocumented 30 sec skip and have never seen the ads.

MY "can't take it anymore" moment for that would be if I was forced to sit and watch an ad of more than 5 seconds instead of zipping through the spots. The TiVo stuff seems like banner ads, basically, that do not stop the FF/REW or slow it down.

Here's the article:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8010531&&#post8010531

It was from Multichannel.com interviewing Sam Howe the Exec. VP and Chief Marketing Officer of TWC. If it is like Inundated said and only during advertisements, probably not a big deal. The interview didn't make that clear.

MCN: Could we expect to see more ads for your Start Over service on Time Warner systems in the next few months?

SAM HOWE: Yes. Six divisions have it now. 80% of subscribers use it on average about four times per month. It’s quite startling, and most [of the response] comes off the back of a bug on the [TV] screen — not because we promoted it.

People intuitively start using it when prompted. We’re about enabling the TV set, and less about our brand being about entertainment, less about all the VOD content. We’re into our innovation enabling people. That’s what Start Over is about. That’s what caller ID in the TV is about. And we think those are the things that refresh the bundle – not screaming that we’ve got more video streams coming their way. What we’re seeing is giving people more control — absolute control of the TV set, like with Start Over. We think that’s really where we’re putting our chips.

Here's the article:
It was from Multichannel.com interviewing Sam Howe the Exec. VP and Chief Marketing Officer of TWC. If it is like Inundated said and only during advertisements, probably not a big deal. The interview didn't make that clear.

I was talking about the TiVo inter-ad banners there.

I have no idea how "Start Over" plans to do it...

Why bother ???

I've posted several articles in the past comparing various cable operators, satellite and cable, telcos and cable, future technological initiatives, all of which indicate that TWC is an industry leader.Except for the fact they use rate shaping / bit shaving for HD.

But unless they add worthless ESPN2HD and NFL Network to their lineup, nobody here is going to give them ANY credit for anything. It's the American Way.

"Worthless" being your assessment, I presume? Because, if they were so worthless, how can they (the NFL and ABC/Disney) charge what you appear to believe is such an exorbitant and outrageous carriage fee?

Judging by this forum and much more that I read on-line and in print ... these 2 channels are by far the most requested. By definition, that would not make them "worthless" to a very large number of TWC subscribers.

But, as we all know, those requests are meaningless to Dressler and the TWC execs. They need to go to the next board meeting and tell the stockholders how many billions of $$$ in profit TWC is raking in ... without doing anything (new programming, features, quality, etc.) for its customers.

Why bother ???

I've posted several articles in the past comparing various cable operators, satellite and cable, telcos and cable, future technological initiatives, all of which indicate that TWC is an industry leader.

The factor you are missing is that they maybe an "industry leader", but only technically.

They could develop teleportation and it would make no difference to the customer if it was only released to 250 households. Most of the "initiatives" that you cite spend more time in test markets than Google projects do in Beta.

Demonstrations to appease shareholders and actual product rollouts for customers are two different things. Widespread customer initiatives and features are almost non-existent.

In the meantime TWC keeps those cable rates nice and high so they can pour money into R&D that 70% of customer markets never see to reap the benefits of.

I've NEVER seen that here in Raleigh. If they ever do, I'll immediately jump ship and join the rest of the TWC Hate Crowd here.

Of course you haven't seen it in Raleigh! By the time it makes it out of it's test bed and appears in Raleigh, TWC and the NFL Network will probably have a carriage deal to broadcast to lunar colonies.

"Worthless" being your assessment, I presume? Because, if they were so worthless, how can they (the NFL and ABC/Disney) charge what you appear to believe is such an exorbitant and outrageous carriage fee?

Judging by this forum and much more that I read on-line and in print ... these 2 channels are by far the most requested. By definition, that would not make them "worthless" to a very large number of TWC subscribers.

But, as we all know, those requests are meaningless to Dressler and the TWC execs. They need to go to the next board meeting and tell the stockholders how many billions of $$$ in profit TWC is raking in ... without doing anything (new programming, features, quality, etc.) for its customers.

I can certainly understand the interest in NFL Network. The word "worthless" was meant to be paired only with worthless ESPN2HD which averages less than 10 hours of HD programming a week. To pay extra for this channel is pure extortion.

Over the next 7 days, there is one Major League Baseball Game, several Little League Baseball Games, and some National Hot Rod Association, for a total of 17 hours, of which nearly half is overnite replays.

Now I would call that WORTHLESS !!!!

The factor you are missing is that they maybe an "industry leader", but only technically.

They could develop teleportation and it would make no difference to the customer if it was only released to 250 households. Most of the "initiatives" that you cite spend more time in test markets than Google projects do in Beta.

Demonstrations to appease shareholders and actual product rollouts for customers are two different things. Widespread customer initiatives and features are almost non-existent.

In the meantime TWC keeps those cable rates nice and high so they can pour money into R&D that 70% of customer markets never see to reap the benefits of.



Of course you haven't seen it in Raleigh! By the time it makes it out of it's test bed and appears in Raleigh, TWC and the NFL Network will probably have a carriage deal to broadcast to lunar colonies.

Let's look back ten years.

Digital Cable - No
Fiber Optic Backbone - No
Video On Demand - No
DVR - No
High Speed Internet - No
IP Phone Service - No
HDTV - No
Full Digital Simulcast - No

Let's look forward ten years.

Start Over - Yes
Switched Digital Video - Yes
Gaming - Yes
OPAC boxless interface - Yes
Switched Digital Video - Yes
Teleportation - Beta testing in 250 homes

...Demonstrations to appease shareholders and actual product rollouts for customers are two different things. Widespread customer initiatives and features are almost non-existent.

In the meantime TWC keeps those cable rates nice and high so they can pour money into R&D that 70% of customer markets never see to reap the benefits of.
...
RightOn, VisionOn. :cool:

I had the original Microsoft\DISH Dishplayer DVR a good 3 years before TWC had a DVR. And DISH's DVRs are years ahead of TWC's right now. So TWC is definitely not a technological leader with items their customers see.

And I'll bet the SATs have CableCard II before TWC does. :D

Let's look back ten years.

Digital Cable - No
Fiber Optic Backbone - No
Video On Demand - No
DVR - No
High Speed Internet - No
IP Phone Service - No
HDTV - No
Full Digital Simulcast - No

ah, I see what you are doing. But why you are listing features that almost every other cableco now has is beyond me.

Let's look forward ten years.

Start Over - Yes
Switched Digital Video - Yes
Gaming - Yes
OPAC boxless interface - Yes
Switched Digital Video - Yes
Teleportation - Beta testing in 250 homes

Is that a list of things TWC will still be testing or features that will be standard for every provider on the market? :D

ah, I see what you are doing. But why you are listing features that almost every other cableco now has is beyond me.



Is that a list of things TWC will still be testing or features that will be standard for every provider on the market? :D

You guys keep reminding me why I'm no longer with my first wife. Thanks. :D

I've NEVER seen that here in Raleigh. If they ever do, I'll immediately jump ship and join the rest of the TWC Hate Crowd here.


Having opinions which don't necessarily always coincide with yours doesn't make anyone a member of the "TWC Hate Crowd".

But you are right at least about one thing: TWC is "an" industry leader in one area -- it's cost to the average sub is by far the highest in the industry. (Which it brags about to Wall Street analysts regularly.)

It would be impossible to look at the latest (or any) JD Power ratings and say TWC is an industry leader in customer satisfaction.

Nor in technological advances.

And how many of those services you mentioned would ever have happened (from TWC or any cable company) were it not for the competition from DBS and now the telcos?

Citing deficiencies in TWC (or Comcast, FiOS, or DirecTV or Dish) does not necessarily make anyone a hater.

Having opinions which always seems to be precisely those of any entity, however, does indicate, at the very least, a closed mind.

And this forum can, at its best, open the eyes of those who are willing to explore facts and opinions of others and perhaps, if the facts warrant, see things in a new way.

Having opinions which don't necessarily always coincide with yours doesn't make anyone a member of the "TWC Hate Crowd".

But you are right at least about one thing: TWC is "an" industry leader in one area -- it's cost to the average sub is by far the highest in the industry. (Which it brags about to Wall Street analysts regularly.)

It would be impossible to look at the latest (or any) JD Power ratings and say TWC is an industry leader in customer satisfaction.

Nor in technological advances.

And how many of those services you mentioned would ever have happened (from TWC or any cable company) were it not for the competition from DBS and now the telcos?

Citing deficiencies in TWC (or Comcast, FiOS, or DirecTV or Dish) does not necessarily make anyone a hater.

Having opinions which always seems to be precisely those of any entity, however, does indicate, at the very least, a closed mind.

And this forum can, at its best, open the eyes of those who are willing to explore facts and opinions of others and perhaps, if the facts warrant, see things in a new way.

Be careful, annual revenue per sub does not necessarily indicate higher prices, it may mean better marketing of add on services, or more add on services available.

In my defense, I've openly admitted that I've chosen a position for the sake of the debate, which is what this is, and that I'm merely presenting an opposing viewpoint to the silly rheotoric that Time Warner sucks and they don't care about their customers.

I'm merely presenting an opposing viewpoint to the silly rheotoric that Time Warner sucks and they don't care about their customers.

which I'm still waiting to see some evidence of incidentally.

As of this moment the only indication of how well TWC corporate values it's new customers, is by yanking a channel from the lineup of people who have already paid for it.

Swinging it back on topic there ...

Sinclair wants cash for carriage of it's HD channels.

And just like the NFL, they want it paid based on the entire subscriber count, even though less than 20% of the households have HD capability.

It's not time to go there yet because once one channel gets cash, they'll all want cash.

It will be interesting to see what happens 2/17/09 when Sinclair's analog channels go away. Don't expect much movement before then.

If what's been claimed in some of the local forums is reasonably accurate (i.e. demanding $0.50+ per subscriber fees and full multicast carry--even of encrypted USDTV channels), the cable companies will still tell them to sod off.

I'm merely presenting an opposing viewpoint to the silly rheotoric that Time Warner sucks and they don't care about their customers.

IMO, that's TWC's biggest problem right now ... namely, that too many of their customers DO think they suck and that they don't care about them. They need to prove otherwise. A good start would be adding a decent channel or 2 (SD and.or HD)--something ... anything ... of value.

You guys keep reminding me why I'm no longer with my first wife. Thanks. :D

I've got two.

1) Something tells me your first wife never needs reminding. :eek:

or

2) Why, was she always right also?

;)

I've got two.

1) Something tells me your first wife never needs reminding. :eek:

or

2) Why, was she always right also?

;)

She was ALWAYS right. :mad: :mad: :mad:

They always are, even if they're wrong. :)

A wife can be wrong? :)

I can certainly understand the interest in NFL Network. The word "worthless" was meant to be paired only with worthless ESPN2HD which averages less than 10 hours of HD programming a week. To pay extra for this channel is pure extortion.

Over the next 7 days, there is one Major League Baseball Game, several Little League Baseball Games, and some National Hot Rod Association, for a total of 17 hours, of which nearly half is overnite replays.

Now I would call that WORTHLESS !!!!

Universal-HD has 24 hours of HD programming/day ... every minute of it, absolutely WORTHLESS. Just because it's in HD, that doesn't make it good. I'll take college football, hoops, and several MLB games a week ... all in HD ... all on ESPN2HD (all of which we are missing because TWC refuses to get a carriage deal for ESPN2HD) ... any day over the endless repeats of Universal HD, InHD, InHD2, HDNet Movies. I, along with probably most of the HD Suite customers out there-- am paying $6.95/mo just to get ESPNHD. TWC knows this.

I've seen Dressler say that ESPN is "obligated" to give TWC ESPN2HD. I'm assuming he means at no cost to TWC. Don't you think that if that was the case (in the language of the contract TWC has with ABC/Disney) that they would haul them off to court ... like they are doing with the NFL? They'd rather spend our money on litigation than on providing quality programming.

Universal-HD has 24 hours of HD programming/day ... every minute of it, absolutely WORTHLESS. Just because it's in HD, that doesn't make it good. I'll take college football, hoops, and several MLB games a week ... all in HD ... all on ESPN2HD (all of which we are missing because TWC refuses to get a carriage deal for ESPN2HD) ... any day over the endless repeats of Universal HD, InHD, InHD2, HDNet Movies. I, along with probably most of the HD Suite customers out there-- am paying $6.95/mo just to get ESPNHD. TWC knows this.

I've seen Dressler say that ESPN is "obligated" to give TWC ESPN2HD. I'm assuming he means at no cost to TWC. Don't you think that if that was the case (in the language of the contract TWC has with ABC/Disney) that they would haul them off to court ... like they are doing with the NFL? They'd rather spend our money on litigation than on providing quality programming.

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

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

The issue is apparently this:

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

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

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

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

Yes, I do. I bet others will agree too, especially once college football begins.