NFL Network vs. Cable holdouts - The 8 game dilemma. - Page 16 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 1586 Old 08-20-2006, 08:44 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
JMCecil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

True, and ESPN charges far more than any of the channels you mentioned, many of which are available for literally pennies per sub. ESPN charges close to $3 per month per sub, and that does not include additional charges for ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPNU, ESPN Desportes, etc.

A number of channels routinely get higher ratings than ESPN and charge far, far less.

Like I said, I understand where you guys are coming from. Letting the profiteers set the rules is rediculous. Having the Cable companies cry foul is equally rediculous. They want their cake and eat it too. They can't have it both ways. If they want open market then you can't blame ESPN/Disney for driving max market.

The FCC should have stepped in and helped the consumers ages ago. But, they haven't worked for the consumer in ages. However, there are economic analysts who would argue that, although it seems expensive on a case by case basis, that this process actually drives a cheaper model over the long term. I will always point out though that cheaper is NOT better. Of course EXPENSIVE doesn't equal quality either.
JMCecil is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 1586 Old 08-20-2006, 12:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dmon4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Speaking of Charter, St. Louis is waking up:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/spo...3?OpenDocument

Highlighted section:

""The amount of money they are asking us to pay would require us to pass that on to our customers, and we understand that not everybody is a football fan,'' Charter's Williams said. "On the sports tier, the people who are interested in it would pay to get it. The amount they want, business-wise, is not a good investment for us.''

Charter carried the network on the sports tier last season.

"The reason it no longer is on there is because Charter was in violation of our agreement,'' Palansky said of it not being placed in the general package. "We charge a license fee, yes, but in exchange the cable operator gets several minutes of ad time that they get to sell and keep all revenue from. They're making it back on ad revenue and not having to pass the cost to the consumer.

"These cable companies that want to put us on a sports tier see NFL fans as passionate and willing to pay anything to get the product. We're trying to make a stand by saying 'No, no, no.' If we sign that deal, they can charge consumers whatever they want.''

An alternative is satellite. NFL Network is available on DirecTV and DISHNetwork and the NFL has made a deal with DISHNetwork for it to be available for $24.99 per month as part of a basic package, although other charges may apply.

"If DISHNetwork can offer this channel for $24.99, and give you 85 other channels, again its not the money that's getting in the way here,'' Palansky said.

But Charter's Williams says it is about the money.

"We have a good football fan base here, but there are a lot of people who don't want to pay extra for it,'' she said.

= = =

* Football is the most popular Sport in the U.S. and placing the NFL Network in a Sports Package/Tier 'IS' making the majority of Sports Fans pay extra for it. I'm convined that the whole problem is that they can't sell enough of their Sports Package/Tier to make a profit without placing the NFL Network into it - sheer greed !

= = =

I bet the phones were ringing when 10's of millions of people found out they could not get the Pats vs the Cards last night. Game info: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...roundup2_x.htm

= = =

Even tiny Cable companies get pressure: http://www.courant.com/business/hc-c...lines-business


"Eastern's system only has room for 80 channels, compared with the more than 100 channels that other systems provide. This leads to pressure from customers to keep up with the newest offerings, such as the NFL Network."

.

There he goes again... Good Ol' R. Reagan's favorite Troll line !
Dmon4u is offline  
post #453 of 1586 Old 08-21-2006, 12:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
VisionOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Carrboro, NC
Posts: 11,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 357
also noticed new ads in my area last night reaching out to footbal fans.

Apparently "Time Warner Cable is THE place for NFL football."

Hmm. Who'd a thunk it?


VisionOn is online now  
post #454 of 1586 Old 08-21-2006, 04:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dmon4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
More from La LA Land: http://www.latimes.com/sports/printe...ines-pe-sports

Council Backs NFL Network
By Larry Stewart, Times Staff Writer
August 21, 2006


The Los Angeles City Council is running interference for NFL Network in its carriage dispute with Time Warner Cable in L.A.

The council on Friday passed a resolution introduced by Councilman Bernard Parks that encourages the Federal Communications Commission to extend indefinitely a temporary order issued Aug. 3 that required Time Warner to restore NFL Network to its customers. The original order extends through Sept. 3.

The resolution asking for the extension passed by a 7-1 margin. The dissenting vote came from Councilman Bill Rosendahl, a former Adelphia cable executive. He said the parties should work out their differences on their own.

The FCC's temporary order came two days after Time Warner Cable abruptly took NFL Network off the channel lineup following a takeover of Adelphia and Comcast, both of which serviced homes in the L.A. market.

That takeover, completed through purchase of bankrupt Adelphia and an asset swap with Comcast, involved about 1.6 million television households in the greater L.A. market. Time Warner now serves about 2 million households in the market and about 600,000 in the city of L.A.

Parks argues that Time Warner's dropping of NFL Network is the city's business because he believes it will force cable customers to turn to satellite services DirecTV and Dish Network, which offer NFL Network. Cities accrue tax dollars from cable subscribers but not from satellite subscribers.

Parks said Friday that Time Warner executive Deane Leavenworth had promised the council that there would be no change in service after Time Warner took control of the Adelphia and Comcast homes in L.A. Then, Parks said, he went home the next day and NFL Network was gone from his cable lineup.

* More info through Link, above.

.

There he goes again... Good Ol' R. Reagan's favorite Troll line !
Dmon4u is offline  
post #455 of 1586 Old 08-21-2006, 04:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
toadfannc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

I don't know about his mind, $10/year/household seems a little steep for eight games. Remember they have more than tripled their rates just for the addition of those eight games. In my mind, that's ridiculous. I don't even like football.

OK, we get it ... you hate football. Anyone who has read any of your posts on this thread knows that. But, you and some others act like the NFL Network will be showing 8 football games and the rest of the time, they'll show a black screen. They have other content you know? For football junkies, programs such as "NFL Total Access", the press conferences, the delayed showings of out of market games, etc.--- are all great viewing. Why do think this network was thriving even before they created the 8 game regular season package?

Yes, it's expensive. But, to a huge number of subscribers, it's worth it. And, to those who say, "why do I have to pay for something I won't watch" ... that can be said for 90% of the garbage channels that all of us have to pay for now.
toadfannc is offline  
post #456 of 1586 Old 08-21-2006, 05:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dmon4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Everyone I know that can get the NFL Network, checks out "NFL Total Access" religiously. Many, in areas where it's not available, wish they could get this. I've actually had friends that don't live in my area visit my house and watch. Once they've seen it, they immediately say they will demand the channel from their Cable company.

It can become an addiction !

.

There he goes again... Good Ol' R. Reagan's favorite Troll line !
Dmon4u is offline  
post #457 of 1586 Old 08-21-2006, 08:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
kjpjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Murrells Inlet
Posts: 530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I just called TWC in South Carolina to order ESPN Game Plan for my college football fix and gave a polite rant for NFLN, ESPN2HD and EPSNU. The person I talked to told me that TWC should have NFLN within a month.

With that information and about $2.00 you should be able to get a coffee of some kind at Starbucks.
kjpjr is offline  
post #458 of 1586 Old 08-21-2006, 08:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
shuttermaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Sounds great but, i wouldnt hold my breath.
shuttermaker is offline  
post #459 of 1586 Old 08-21-2006, 08:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
VisionOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Carrboro, NC
Posts: 11,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjpjr View Post

I just called TWC in South Carolina to order ESPN Game Plan for my college football fix and gave a polite rant for NFLN, ESPN2HD and EPSNU. The person I talked to told me that TWC should have NFLN within a month.

I think there's a magical multiple choice button on the other end of the phone. The CSR presses the button and it comes up with a random answer that it thinks the customer would most like to hear.

It's most probably recorded using Fred Dressler's voice.


VisionOn is online now  
post #460 of 1586 Old 08-21-2006, 08:46 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 73
He's confusing it with the old Adelphia territories. They get NFL within a month (only within the current month)
CPanther95 is offline  
post #461 of 1586 Old 08-21-2006, 09:18 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by toadfannc View Post

OK, we get it ... you hate football. Anyone who has read any of your posts on this thread knows that. But, you and some others act like the NFL Network will be showing 8 football games and the rest of the time, they'll show a black screen. They have other content you know? For football junkies, programs such as "NFL Total Access", the press conferences, the delayed showings of out of market games, etc.--- are all great viewing. Why do think this network was thriving even before they created the 8 game regular season package?

Yes, it's expensive. But, to a huge number of subscribers, it's worth it. And, to those who say, "why do I have to pay for something I won't watch" ... that can be said for 90% of the garbage channels that all of us have to pay for now.

I don't hate football. I just don't care about it.

But I think it's great that two out of the three video providers in your area carry it.
posg is offline  
post #462 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 02:37 AM
Advanced Member
 
toadfannc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

I don't hate football. I just don't care about it.

But I think it's great that two out of the three video providers in your area carry it.

Unfortunately, for me (and probably many others)- 2 of those (satellite) are not possible due to where I live. That leaves only 1 "choice"-- the crappy cable company who has the worst channel line-up in the business. Any guesses?
toadfannc is offline  
post #463 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 04:18 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by toadfannc View Post

Unfortunately, for me (and probably many others)- 2 of those (satellite) are not possible due to where I live. That leaves only 1 "choice"-- the crappy cable company who has the worst channel line-up in the business. Any guesses?

I read that both D* and E* claim coverage of around 90% of the television households. Obviously there are a few who simply cannot "see" their signals from their location. But usually where there's a will, there's a way. I've seen some pretty creative dish installations.

On the other hand, there are some locations that can't get cable, but can get satellite. Retail locations surrounded by pavement are often economically unservable.

But I bet if you really really tried......
posg is offline  
post #464 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 04:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
toadfannc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

I read that both D* and E* claim coverage of around 90% of the television households. Obviously there are a few who simply cannot "see" their signals from their location. But usually where there's a will, there's a way. I've seen some pretty creative dish installations.

On the other hand, there are some locations that can't get cable, but can get satellite. Retail locations surrounded by pavement are often economically unservable.

But I bet if you really really tried......

Maybe ... I know- I can hire a 7 ft. guy to stand on my apartment building roof 24x7x365-- and face him in a SW direction and tell him he can never move. Then I can have someone drill holes all over the building to run cable-- from the dish my guy is holding to my apartment.

Thanks. Now I have a plan.
toadfannc is offline  
post #465 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 06:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
dslate69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

I read that both D* and E* claim coverage of around 90% of the television households. Obviously there are a few who simply cannot "see" their signals from their location. But usually where there's a will, there's a way. I've seen some pretty creative dish installations.

On the other hand, there are some locations that can't get cable, but can get satellite. Retail locations surrounded by pavement are often economically unservable.

But I bet if you really really tried......

I have to disagree with you when you say that if you want NFL Network you have 2 other choices, because for a whole lot of Americans that is not true.

There is no way 90% of Americans have an unencumbered view of the SW skies. 90% of the residence in NY, LA, Chicago, etc. could get SAT if they wanted to ? If you believe that I have some magic beans I'll sell you. And from whatever % of Americans can get SAT with what you call a "creative dish installation", you have to deduct for the UGLY factor. If a person can get SAT by installing it in the middle of their front yard (if they even own a home), I would think most would shy away from that unless they are like me and the NEED for HD and Football are too much.

Cable has the one wire hookup solution. If they had the price, up to date receivers and the choice of channels SAT has, they would be the clear choice. But for most Americans cable is the only option. Not just cable but the ONE cable company that happens to be in their area, in my case the second most sucky of all TWC; with Charter being the worst.

SAT can't go everywhere do to lack of a SW view or other restrictions. However your reason that some are not served by cable is all too telling. It's not that Cable can't provide a hookup, but that they WON'T. Until Cable has to provide access to their lines like Telcos do or a truly wireless solution that can serve 95% of a market, Cable will continue to be a monopoly and act as such.
dslate69 is online now  
post #466 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 06:33 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dslate69 View Post

I have to disagree with you when you say that if you want NFL Network you have 2 other choices, because for a whole lot of Americans that is not true.

There is no way 90% of Americans have an unencumbered view of the SW skies. 90% of the residence in NY, LA, Chicago, etc. could get SAT if they wanted to ? If you believe that I have some magic beans I'll sell you. And from whatever % of Americans can get SAT with what you call a "creative dish installation", you have to deduct for the UGLY factor. If a person can get SAT by installing it in the middle of their front yard (if they even own a home), I would think most would shy away from that unless they are like me and the NEED for HD and Football are too much.

Cable has the one wire hookup solution. If they had the price, up to date receivers and the choice of channels SAT has, they would be the clear choice. But for most Americans cable is the only option. Not just cable but the ONE cable company that happens to be in their area, in my case the second most sucky of all TWC; with Charter being the worst.

SAT can't go everywhere do to lack of a SW view or other restrictions. However your reason that some are not served by cable is all too telling. It's not that Cable can't provide a hookup, but that they WON'T. Until Cable has to provide access to their lines like Telcos do or a truly wireless solution that can serve 95% of a market, Cable will continue to be a monopoly and act as such.

The worst case scenerio, the caverns of high rise downtown business districts, are typically not heavily residential. However, even those areas have greater access to satellite reception than you might suspect.

Many high rises offer DirecTV as an option to cable. A parallel DirecTV distribution system is wired through access ducts connected to a master dish on the roof. In fact, in many high rise areas, the tenant associations have exclusive bulk rate agreements with DirecTV and don't have cable available at all. How do I know ??? I used to engineer and install them !!!

I have no doubt that the 90% number is a good number, in fact if anything it's conservative. The fact that you say FOR MOST AMERICANS CABLE IS THE ONLY OPTION undermines the credibility of any factual statements you may actually make.
posg is offline  
post #467 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 07:11 AM
Senior Member
 
gstelmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmon4u View Post

Speaking of Charter, St. Louis is waking up:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/spo...3?OpenDocument

"We charge a license fee, yes, but in exchange the cable operator gets several minutes of ad time that they get to sell and keep all revenue from. They're making it back on ad revenue and not having to pass the cost to the consumer. "

I thought this was a key piece of information in the debate that sure makes it look like the cable companies are ONLY trying to push their sports tier as a new revenue stream. Seems like the NFL has given a reasonable compromise here by giving the cableco a new revenue stream in return (aside from letting them attract customers such as myself who have been riding out DirecTV's recent woes without switching because we'd lose NFL network and ESPN2-HD...)

-- Greg

gstelmack is offline  
post #468 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 07:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
dslate69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

The worst case scenerio, the caverns of high rise downtown business districts, are typically not heavily residential. However, even those areas have greater access to satellite reception than you might suspect.

Many high rises offer DirecTV as an option to cable. A parallel DirecTV distribution system is wired through access ducts connected to a master dish on the roof. In fact, in many high rise areas, the tenant associations have exclusive bulk rate agreements with DirecTV and don't have cable available at all. How do I know ??? I used to engineer and install them !!!

I have no doubt that the 90% number is a good number, in fact if anything it's conservative. The fact that you say FOR MOST AMERICANS CABLE IS THE ONLY OPTION undermines the credibility of any factual statements you may actually make.

As I have stated many times I would love for TWC to provide the channels and pricing that SAT does. And I will jump ship for the best overall offering in a heartbeat. Right now I am with DISH, but I could very well be praising cable if I had a cable choice that was worth a damn. I have TRUE credibility as an objective consumer of HD + SD programming. You, not so much.

I guess I could add an adjective like "viable" to my statement to add a pinch more credibility. But for MOST americans that prefer the easy one cable hookup to all tv's in the home with zero impact on home, SAT is not an option. I don't think dish's are any uglier than OTA's or mailboxes, but MOST including myself would prefer not to have them in their front yard or on their roof.

I am intrigued that a high rise can have dishes with multiple LNBs pointed at different SATs and distribute one cable to an apartment for them to receive all that DISH or DirecTv has to offer. Are you sure that you are representing that correctly? I had heard that the apartments such as this have DirecTv channels fed into a distribution center that sent out the basic channels. So I am to understand someone could hook up the new mpeg4 HD receiver in one of these high rises and receive ALL that DirecTv has to offer?
dslate69 is online now  
post #469 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 07:43 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dslate69 View Post

As I have stated many times I would love for TWC to provide the channels and pricing that SAT does. And I will jump ship for the best overall offering in a heartbeat. Right now I am with DISH, but I could very well be praising cable if I had a cable choice that was worth a damn. I have TRUE credibility as an objective consumer of HD + SD programming. You, not so much.

I guess I could add an adjective like "viable" to my statement to add a pinch more credibility. But for MOST americans that prefer the easy one cable hookup to all tv's in the home with zero impact on home, SAT is not an option. I don't think dish's are any uglier than OTA's or mailboxes, but MOST including myself would prefer not to have them in their front yard or on their roof.

I am intrigued that a high rise can have dishes with multiple LNBs pointed at different SATs and distribute one cable to an apartment for them to receive all that DISH or DirecTv has to offer. Are you sure that you are representing that correctly? I had heard that the apartments such as this have DirecTv channels fed into a distribution center that sent out the basic channels. So I am to understand someone could hook up the new mpeg4 HD receiver in one of these high rises and receive ALL that DirecTv has to offer?

Actually it's a pretty simple set up. All the LNB feeds run into inputs of a mulitswitch. An off-air antenna can be connected as well. Typically 16 receivers are connected to output ports. As you change channels, the correct LNB path is routed to your output port based on the "request" it gets from your receiver.
posg is offline  
post #470 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 07:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
dslate69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

Actually it's a pretty simple set up. All the LNB feeds run into inputs of a mulitswitch. An off-air antenna can be connected as well. Typically 16 receivers are connected to output ports. As you change channels, the correct LNB path is routed to your output port based on the "request" it gets from your receiver.

So the answer to the following question is "yes" ?
"So I am to understand someone could hook up the new mpeg4 HD receiver in one of these high rises and receive ALL that DirecTv has to offer?"

Remember you are talking to a "consumer".
dslate69 is online now  
post #471 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 09:40 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dslate69 View Post

So the answer to the following question is "yes" ?
"So I am to understand someone could hook up the new mpeg4 HD receiver in one of these high rises and receive ALL that DirecTv has to offer?"

Remember you are talking to a "consumer".

If the dish installation and multiswitch installation supports it. Remembering that one of the disadvantages of having a "disconnected" distribution system is that any technology upgrade is a major undertaking, and some third party resellers won't bother making the necessary investment. They represent themselves as DirecTV when in fact they are not.

So the answer is maybe, maybe not.

My guess is that currently the answer is mostly NOT.
posg is offline  
post #472 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 10:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dmon4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Contuinuing the La LA Land saga (legal papers being filed):

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...lines-politics

Highlights:


Football Fight Turns Political
L.A. City Council's involvement reflects the seriousness of a dispute between Time Warner Cable and the NFL Network.
By Larry Stewart, Times Staff Writer
August 22, 2006
=
Who says you can't fight City Hall? You can if you're Time Warner Cable, a division of the largest media company in the world. And the mighty NFL as well.
=
But even with City Hall on its side, NFL Network faces a difficult battle that could keep it out of 2 million cable homes in the Greater L.A. market, and 600,000 homes within the L.A. city limits.

For three years, Time Warner Cable has refused to carry the league-owned network, which launched in November 2003.

And when Time Warner Cable recently replaced Adelphia and Comcast cable in the L.A. market, it took NFL Network away from those customers who were getting it.
=
The City Council resolution asked the FCC to extend the order to restore NFL Network indefinitely.

The FCC order drew a 67-page response from Time Warner Cable, and that, in turn, generated a 24-page legal brief filed by NFL Network on Monday.

= = =

I wonder if Time Warner will spend 10's of millions, perhaps over $100 million in legal Fees fighting against America's Top Sport....

.

There he goes again... Good Ol' R. Reagan's favorite Troll line !
Dmon4u is offline  
post #473 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 10:35 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Draw your own conclusions:

DirecTV lodging rates/room/month

Universal Choice $2.50
ABC Family
A&E
American Movie Classics (AMC)
Animal Planet
Bloomberg Television
Black Entertainment (BET)
Cartoon Network
CNBC
CNN
Comedy Central
Court TV
C-SPAN
C-SPAN2
CSTV: College Sports Television
Discovery Channel
Discovery Health Channel
Headline News
The History Channel
E! Entertainment Television
Fox News Channel
FX
FUEL TV
GSN: the network for games
Lifetime
Military Channel
MSNBC
MTV
MTV2
NFL Network
National Geographic Channel
Nickelodeon
TBS
G4 videogame tv
The Learning Channel (TLC)
TNT
Sci-Fi Channel
The Science Channel
SOAPnet
Spike TV
Speed Channel
TV Land
TV One
USA Network
VH1
VH1 Classic
WE: Women's Entertainment
The Weather Channel

A La Carte Add Ons
ESPN $3.50
ESPN/ESPN2 $3.10
ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNews $2.95
ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNews/ESPNClassic/ESPNU $2.90
NFL Network $.30
HBO Multiplex $3.50

How is it that NFL Network is part of a $2.50 package, available at 30 cents a la carte, while ESPN cost as much as $3.50???

Posted for those who doubt that NFL Network is giving their service away to satellite providers in order to leverage cable carriage.
posg is offline  
post #474 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 10:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CCsoftball7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 1,117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmon4u View Post

I wonder if Time Warner will spend 10's of millions, perhaps over $100 million in legal Fees fighting against America's Top Sport....

The simple answer is yes...then they can charge the consumer an extra $3 so they can pay the legal bill to save the consumer $2. Make sense? I think not.
CCsoftball7 is offline  
post #475 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 10:44 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCsoftball7 View Post

The simple answer is yes...then they can charge the consumer an extra $3 so they can pay the legal bill to save the consumer $2. Make sense? I think not.

The city council is WAY OUT OF BOUNDS asking the FCC to force TWC to extend NFL Network beyond the legal 30 day notice period.

And TWC was WAY OUT OF BOUNDS dropping the channel without the required notice.

I don't see how TWC accrues any legal fees. It's their right to choose what programming they offer. I think it's called the "First Amendment". There's plenty of established precident.
posg is offline  
post #476 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 10:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
dslate69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So when claiming that 90% of Americans have the option of SAT and all it has to offer, since we are comparing apples to apples. You make the statement that High Rises sometimes have the
option of SAT and sometimes exclusively SAT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

...
Many high rises offer DirecTV as an option to cable. A parallel DirecTV distribution system is wired through access ducts connected to a master dish on the roof. In fact, in many high rise areas, the tenant associations have exclusive bulk rate agreements with DirecTV and don't have cable available at all. How do I know ??? I used to engineer and install them!!! ...

But when asked this question...
"So I am to understand someone could hook up the new mpeg4 HD receiver in one of these high rises and receive ALL that DirecTv has to offer?"

I get a "techno-speak" answer. I ask it again and finally get what I more or less knew to be the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

...
My guess is that currently the answer is mostly NOT.

Who has the "Credibility" problem?
SAT is NOT an option for apartments, condos or anyone without a clear SW view.

There is not one TWC stance that you do not stand with whether it be a la carte or the channels other providers provide and TWC doesn't. (NFL,ESPN2-HD,WB-HD)
Well there is one, you don't claim to be a Football Fan and TWC does.

If someone is not "objective" how can they be "credible"?
dslate69 is online now  
post #477 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 11:05 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dslate69 View Post

So when claiming that 90% of Americans have the option of SAT and all it has to offer, since we are comparing apples to apples. You make the statement that High Rises sometimes have the
option of SAT and sometimes exclusively SAT.


But when asked this question...
"So I am to understand someone could hook up the new mpeg4 HD receiver in one of these high rises and receive ALL that DirecTv has to offer?"

I get a "techno-speak" answer. I ask it again and finally get what I more or less knew to be the case.


Who has the "Credibility" problem?
SAT is NOT an option for apartments, condos or anyone without a clear SW view.

There is not one TWC stance that you do not stand with whether it be a la carte or the channels other providers provide and TWC doesn't. (NFL,ESPN2-HD,WB-HD)
Well there is one, you don't claim to be a Football Fan and TWC does.

If someone is not "objective" how can they be "credible"?

I'm just trying to be factual and honest. I'm only reinterating availability numbers that the satellite industry reports, at least to their investors.

Maybe DirecTV reports 70% coverage and Charlie reports 110% and the average of the 2 is 90%.
posg is offline  
post #478 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 11:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
dslate69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

I'm just trying to be factual and honest. I'm only reinterating availability numbers that the satellite industry reports, at least to their investors.

Maybe DirecTV reports 70% coverage and Charlie reports 110% and the average of the 2 is 90%.

I would not put much "factual" stock in numbers of potential customers being passed around to investors. Logic tells me that if NY, LA, Chicago, etc has a crap load of people then they have a crap load of people that can't get SAT and are stuck with whatever cable monopoly is in their town.

Let's just say if you have a HDTV and enjoy sports that DISH may be a better fit and if you don't need HD and Shopping channels is your thing then TWC is for you.
dslate69 is online now  
post #479 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 11:41 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dslate69 View Post

I would not put much "factual" stock in numbers of potential customers being passed around to investors. Logic tells me that if NY, LA, Chicago, etc has a crap load of people then they have a crap load of people that can't get SAT and are stuck with whatever cable monopoly is in their town.

Let's just say if you have a HDTV and enjoy sports that DISH may be a better fit and if you don't need HD and Shopping channels is your thing then TWC is for you.

Here's some interesting numbers. It shows the percentage of households that subcribe to wired cable and/or satellite, wired cable only, ADS (alternative distribution) which is almost all satellite.

Enjoy.

http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettr...ion_by_DMA.asp
posg is offline  
post #480 of 1586 Old 08-22-2006, 11:45 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
P.S. There's no consistent correlation between markets which are more multi-unit dwelling intensive than those that are more suburban.
posg is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Programming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off