or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › NFL Network vs. Cable holdouts - The 8 game dilemma.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NFL Network vs. Cable holdouts - The 8 game dilemma. - Page 3  

post #61 of 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

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.
post #62 of 1586
LA Times Article on this mess
post #63 of 1586
So if I read that correctly TWC could pay a $2 surcharge and put it on the digital pay tier right now?
post #64 of 1586
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/cab..._id=1002949365
post #65 of 1586
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

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?????
post #66 of 1586
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by toadfannc View Post

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.
post #67 of 1586
Thread Starter 
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 !!!!
post #68 of 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

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.
post #69 of 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

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.
post #70 of 1586
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

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.
post #71 of 1586
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.
post #72 of 1586
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

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 ????
post #73 of 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

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.
post #74 of 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

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.
post #75 of 1586
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-...adlines-sports
post #76 of 1586
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..
post #77 of 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeoz View Post

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.
post #78 of 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonscott87 View Post

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..
post #79 of 1586
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.
post #80 of 1586
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
post #81 of 1586
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/ind...leID=CA6359098
post #82 of 1586
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/rec..._id=1002950066
post #83 of 1586
Sports On TV
FCC Orders TW to Reinstate NFL Net Carriage

Here is the complete FCC statement:

 

FCC-TWC-NFL.pdf 109.3408203125k . file
post #84 of 1586
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.
post #85 of 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincySaint View Post

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.
post #86 of 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincySaint View Post

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).
post #87 of 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

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.
post #88 of 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

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.
post #89 of 1586
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?
post #90 of 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincySaint View Post

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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › NFL Network vs. Cable holdouts - The 8 game dilemma.