NFL Network vs. Cable holdouts - The 8 game dilemma. - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 1586 Old 08-08-2006, 03:13 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 27,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLV View Post

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...
Keenan is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 1586 Old 08-08-2006, 04:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dmon4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I thought the American Taliban is all for this ?

.

There he goes again... Good Ol' R. Reagan's favorite Troll line !
Dmon4u is offline  
post #183 of 1586 Old 08-08-2006, 04:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
VisionOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Carrboro, NC
Posts: 11,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmon4u View Post

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.


VisionOn is online now  
post #184 of 1586 Old 08-08-2006, 04:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
VisionOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Carrboro, NC
Posts: 11,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 332
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/art...=Breaking+News


VisionOn is online now  
post #185 of 1586 Old 08-08-2006, 05:04 PM - 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 keenan View Post

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/englis.../signup_pr.asp
Star Choice - Store - Customize your TV experience


GEE WHIZ !!! WHO THOUGHT OF THAT ???
posg is offline  
post #186 of 1586 Old 08-08-2006, 05:17 PM - 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
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.
posg is offline  
post #187 of 1586 Old 08-08-2006, 05:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 86
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.
Gary J is online now  
post #188 of 1586 Old 08-08-2006, 06:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jpco's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 1,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.
jpco is offline  
post #189 of 1586 Old 08-08-2006, 07:23 PM
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

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).
toadfannc is offline  
post #190 of 1586 Old 08-08-2006, 09:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dmon4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
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.

.

There he goes again... Good Ol' R. Reagan's favorite Troll line !
Dmon4u is offline  
post #191 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 04:40 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 toadfannc View Post

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

posg is offline  
post #192 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 05:49 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 jpco View Post

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.
posg is offline  
post #193 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 06:21 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

Great analogy:

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


I was thinking more ... rich and powerful (titans/NFL) vs. slow and doomed (Titanic/TWC).
toadfannc is offline  
post #194 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 07:00 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

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.
toadfannc is offline  
post #195 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 07:29 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
If TWC's stance with Sinclair Broadcasting is any indication, this issue may never get resolved.
shuttermaker is offline  
post #196 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 07:34 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

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".
posg is offline  
post #197 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 07:41 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 shuttermaker View Post

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.
posg is offline  
post #198 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 07:47 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

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.
shuttermaker is offline  
post #199 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 08:03 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 shuttermaker View Post

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.
posg is offline  
post #200 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 08:07 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

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.
fredfa is offline  
post #201 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 08:14 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

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 ?
dslate69 is offline  
post #202 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 08:25 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 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".

TWC hasn't added any HD channels in 2 years, so I don't expect anything from them.
toadfannc is offline  
post #203 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 08:34 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

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.
posg is offline  
post #204 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 08:37 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 fredfa View Post

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.
posg is offline  
post #205 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 09:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
skyehill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

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.
skyehill is offline  
post #206 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 09:21 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

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.


Perhaps just like CNN, TBS or other TW channels are allowed to be sold as an optional service by TW? Not.
fredfa is offline  
post #207 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 09:40 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 skyehill View Post

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.
dslate69 is offline  
post #208 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 09:45 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 61
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.
CPanther95 is offline  
post #209 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 09:59 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 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".

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).
toadfannc is offline  
post #210 of 1586 Old 08-09-2006, 10:19 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

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.....
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