Anybody thought of what would happen if TimeWarner wins the battle?

[Taco John]

Sorry folks but as a DirectTV subscriber, I hope Time/Warner loses. The bottom line for me is that the NFL wants their package to be part of the basic channel package, hence the most people get to view their channel. Their point is that they're having to compete with ESPN, and if ESPN is part of the basic package, they want to be there too.

If Time/Warner wins, however, fewer people will be able to get the games still, unless they pay for the expanded sports packages. And that will affect the industry across the board. Instead of getting it for free, every service provider will start charging extra for the channel. Screw that noise.

I hope the NFL holds their ground here. I'm pretty sure they will, because it's the only way that channel is truly going to work out.

[Rohirrim]

They should look to Howard Stern and pay radio to see what can happen.

[Rascal]

Well all I can say is that their production has been piss poor thus far, and it's no wonder they don't want to compete with ESPN.

[Taco John]

This is my interpretation of the argument.


NFL: Here is our product. You can have it if you included in your basic package.

DirectTV: Cool! This is a great value add. Our cutomers will love this. It's a deal.

Time/Warner: Nice product, but we want to mark it up. We can't mark it up if it's in the basic package unless we raise our rates across the board. We can't do that. We're not going to show your channel.

NFL: Well that sucks. Our business model requires it to be in the basic package, otherwise we can't get the eyeballs and the revenue we need to maintain the channel. We have to stand our ground on this one. We hope you'll reconsider.

Time/Warner: We want to mark it up. We can't do that without putting it in a sports package. We hope you'll reconsider.

NFL: But if you put it in a sports package, only people subscribing to the sports package will be able to see it. That's a small percentage that would be viewing it if it were in the basic package. The NFL is the number one sport in America. There's no reason it shouldn't be in a basic package. We're even showing games on this channel. We don't desire to go pay-per-view. We want our product open and available to anyone.

Time/Warner: We want to put your channel in a package. We won't carry your product unless we can put it in a package.

NFL: But if we let you put it in a package, then every distributor will want to put it in a package. We'll lose a lot of viewership that we already have. We can't do that. The viewers we'd lose across the board would outweigh the viewers we'd gain from those subscribing to the package. That's deal breaker.

[Taco John]

Well all I can say is that their production has been piss poor thus far, and it's no wonder they don't want to compete with ESPN.



I disagree. Outside of Gumble, I've enjoyed the NFL broadcast much more than the ESPN broadcasts over the years. And even with Gumble, it sure beats the years I had to put up with Paul McGuire.

I have no problems with the NFL presentation of the game overall.


And also, what you said makes no sense. The DO want to compete with ESPN. That's their entire plan.

[That One Guy]

When the NFL put those games up for bid they were offered 400M for the games. If the NFLN loses their battle and are relegated to premium channel status, they'll cut their losses and make sell those games. With the exception of hardcore football fans, folks aren't going to pay $8 a month (as I currently am) to watch bad programming and a few games that they don't care about. I hope the NFLN loses because weekly games shouldn't be taken from the public. We deal with 1001 commercials per game, they make plenty off those. My main reason for wanting the NFLN to fail though is if they succeed, where does it all end? Next the games currently being flexed by NBC... those types of games could become NFLN games forcing people to get their network if they want to see meaningful games while loser games are left on the basic networks.

I think that if the NFLN is kept off basic cable, it will fail horribly and we'll see these games go back to basic networks. There just isn't a high enough demand for a premium NFL channel.

[Rascal]

It's not that simple. The cable companies have a legit arguement in that the NFL is charging more $$ then a similar product despite the fact that there is only basically 6 months of programming for a select market (only NFL fans).

[Taco John]

When the NFL put those games up for bid they were offered 400M for the games. If the NFLN loses their battle and are relegated to premium channel status, they'll cut their losses and make sell those games. With the exception of hardcore football fans, folks aren't going to pay $8 a month (as I currently am) to watch bad programming and a few games that they don't care about. I hope the NFLN loses because weekly games shouldn't be taken from the public. We deal with 1001 commercials per game, they make plenty off those. My main reason for wanting the NFLN to fail though is if they succeed, where does it all end? Next the games currently being flexed by NBC... those types of games could become NFLN games forcing people to get their network if they want to see meaningful games while loser games are left on the basic networks.

I think that if the NFLN is kept off basic cable, it will fail horribly and we'll see these games go back to basic networks. There just isn't a high enough demand for a premium NFL channel.


When I read posts like this, it confirms for me that people just don't understand this issue. The NFL doesn't want their network to be a premium package. They want it to be the standard fare. They are trying to compete with ESPN. Time/Warner are the folks that want it to be a premium package, not the NFL.

[Mtbrncofn]

I'd forgotten how much Gumbel sucks til this year. Yech.

[That One Guy]

When I read posts like this, it confirms for me that people just don't understand this issue. The NFL doesn't want their network to be a premium package. They want it to be the standard fare. They are trying to compete with ESPN. Time/Warner are the folks that want it to be a premium package, not the NFL.

I do understand that but I also know that cable companies aren't going to play along. I believe I saw that NFLN wants .70 per customer. If they put that on basic cable and are forced to pay .70 for each of the millions of customers Time Warner has, that's a lot of money that Time Warner doesn't want to give up for a small market TV. While the NFL is extremely popular, the channel wont have a large crowd other than live games. That leaves 5 or 6 days a week of BS programming that only hardcore fans will want to watch. There's no reason non-football fans should pay .70 for a channel that even football fans aren't gonna watch most of the time.

And the only part I don't understand is why there's such a fuss with Time Warner about this when my Cable company, Insight, came to an agreement with NFLN after the Thanksgiving game to get the live games. The agreement apparently allows NFLN to be on a sports tier because that's where it's at. So, they let my cable company put it on a tier but they wont let megacompany Time Warner because the NFL sees that as a cashcow that must be exploited. I think it's BS.

[Garcia Bronco]

Fork cable companies...if you people had a soul at all you would disco your Time Warner or Comcast today. Get Direct TV...it's a much better product. Also, if you work for Comcast I hope you get ring worm. Merry Christmas. :)

[Garcia Bronco]

You should be able to get Channels ala cart also. I don't want 9/10ths of the channels out there. Give me

History
Discovery
Fuel
ESPN Family
Local Channels
HBO - just the original
Weather
NFLN

That's it...that's all I want. I should be able to get that for 15-25 beans a month.

Not 45 beans and a bunch of channels that I don't need or want.

[Rock Chalk]

I dont care.

If the NFLN fails I hope Rich Eisen gets another job on another network because he is the only person I even like anymore.

I cant stand Woodson, that fat guy and Marshall Faulk combo. Thats horrible. Mooch, Eisen and Neon Deion is a good combo for me. I dont care for Sanders but Eisen and Mooch keep him in check. Eisen asks great questions and Mooch gives great insight. Hell even Sanders is good at analysis when he isnt Taco Johning Ray Lewis' nether regions.

Im less concerned with the NFLN winning than I am with Sunday Ticket being on DirecTV only. I hate satellite and wouldnt even have DTV if it was on cable. THat being said, I will NEVER switch to Time Warner, they can kiss my ass.

[Rascal]

The day I can pick and choose the channels I want is the day I get cable TV. No way in hell I'm going to pay for 5+ damn shopping network channels.

[Rascal]

I dont care.

If the NFLN fails I hope Rich Eisen gets another job on another network because he is the only person I even like anymore.

I cant stand Woodson, that fat guy and Marshall Faulk combo. Thats horrible. Mooch, Eisen and Neon Deion is a good combo for me. I dont care for Sanders but Eisen and Mooch keep him in check. Eisen asks great questions and Mooch gives great insight. Hell even Sanders is good at analysis when he isnt Taco Johning Ray Lewis' nether regions.

Im less concerned with the NFLN winning than I am with Sunday Ticket being on DirecTV only. I hate satellite and wouldnt even have DTV if it was on cable. THat being said, I will NEVER switch to Time Warner, they can kiss my ass.

LOL!!!

Even if it was my name I would find that hillarious as hell.

[Rock Chalk]

You should be able to get Channels ala cart also. I don't want 9/10ths of the channels out there. Give me

History
Discovery
Fuel
ESPN Family
Local Channels
HBO - just the original
Weather
NFLN

That's it...that's all I want. I should be able to get that for 15-25 beans a month.

Not 45 beans and a bunch of channels that I don't need or want.


It'll never happen. You know why? They will lose millions. If people got to pay for what they wanted, the cable and satellite companies would lose MILLIONS in revenue from channels no one would subscribe to.

There are a couple of packages Id get if I could get them in separate packages.

ESPN package (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNNews, ESPN Classic, ESPNU)
Discovery Package(Discovery, DIscoery Health, Science, Discovery Military, Discovery Times, TLC)
A&E Package (Biography, NGC, History, History International, A&E)
Cable Network Package (USA, TNT, SciFi, FX, etc)

That gives me about 30 channels, whcih is about what I watch. Essentially I pay 2 dollars per channel because I only watch those channels. I watch about 10% of the channels I get. If I watch about 10% of the channels and I onyl want to pay about 10% of the channels my bill should only be about 10% of what it is.

That would knock it down to 6 bucks a month OR 72 bucks a year, slightly more annually than I pay per month at the moment.

Yeah, they arent about to do that. They'd realize really quick how much **** they actually got on their systems.

How many shopping channels do we really need? I know I got about 15. I got about 60 Spanish speaking channels and I neither speak Spanish nor intend to learn that ****ty language. I got 20 or so news channels and 6 or so music TV channels I dont want or care about. Then I got a bunch of channels designed specifically for women that I dont think I have ever turned on and apparently a channel called LOGO is for the queers out there. Well, why do I have to pay for a queer channel knowing Im not ever going to watch it? Let the queers pay for their channel and let the sports people pay for theirs. I dont need WE or Lifetime or Hallmark or TCM or FoxMovies or any of those other garbage network movie channels that show nothing but crap full of crap commercials.

Yet, here I am paying for them. Like a schmuck.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It'll never happen. You know why? They will lose millions.
It's already happening.

I do understand that but I also know that cable companies aren't going to play along.
This is not true, some cable companies offer NFLN along with both satellite companies.

I I got about 60 Spanish speaking channels and I neither speak Spanish nor intend to learn that ****ty language. It's a beautiful language but some small amount of culture is required to appreciate it.

[Garcia Bronco]

It's already happening.


.

Who?

[MechanicalBull]

I love how The NFL Network is giving a free weeks preview for Cablevision and Time Warner during Christmas week but they will not show any NFL games and instead they get the Insight and Texas Bowl games and Rich Eisen and the gang repeatedly:rofl:

Guess it might be a good thing they don't get tonight's game to hear Gumble and Dick "I have no voice" Vermeil

[Garcia Bronco]

I don't even have sat or cable....since I moved to Denver.....:)....I never have to worry about getting the game...and I get the over air HD channels fo free fo free. :)

NFLN...CBS....ESPN SNF...it doesn't matter. I'll always get the game...when I'm not at the game :)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Who?
Most companies will offer à la carte basis programing packages in the not too distant future. This has been discussed on CNBC many times this year. The first packages will be family orientated.

The catch is monthly bills will increase to cover the costs.

[Garcia Bronco]

LOL!!!

Even if it was my name I would find that hillarious as hell.



I'd hate to get Taco John'ed out here in the middle of no where.

[TexanBob]

The day I can pick and choose the channels I want is the day I get cable TV. No way in hell I'm going to pay for 5+ damn shopping network channels.

Point of fact: The Shopping channels and some of the fundy Christian channels actually *lower* your bill because they PAY carriers to show their channel. For the shopping channels, it's exposure. More eyeballs mean more sales. They pay your provider to put their programming on the air. It's factored into the cost of their products. For fundy channels, they take that "spreading the gospel" stuff seriously and have benefactors who donate money believing they might touch some soul searching for God.

As for ala carte pricing, surveys have been done where customers are asked "how much would you personally pay just for ESPN (or TBS or History or Lifetime, etc)?" and the total people will claim they are willing to pay adds up to more than they are actually paying for cable and yet they will still b**** about their cable bill being too high.

TJ wants to paint the NFL as the little sisters of the poor when actually they are trying to bully other businesses into carrying their channel on terms some of the carriers find unacceptable. It's a shame that fans are caught in the middle but the wrath should be targeted at the NFL, which is now branching out into bowl games as a way of trying to put more pressure on. You'd think the NFL would be a sufficient source to interest carriers on its own but apparently not since they also have to strong arm fans of Rutgers, Kansas State and Texas Tech in their attempt to get carriage on their own terms.

[Taco John]

You should be able to get Channels ala cart also. I don't want 9/10ths of the channels out there. Give me

History
Discovery
Fuel
ESPN Family
Local Channels
HBO - just the original
Weather
NFLN

That's it...that's all I want. I should be able to get that for 15-25 beans a month.

Not 45 beans and a bunch of channels that I don't need or want.


I agree with that. I don't want a dime of my bill going towards the support of MTV.

[watermock]

I didn't know that NFLN had hijacked tonights game...I'm royally pissed. I thought they just had thursday games. I'm thrilled.

[watermock]

If CBS wasn't being an ass, I would allready have Direct TV. Why don't they just put it on expanded cable?

That's pretty easy to figure out. This the same BS that Murdoch has been pulling by greasing the NFL's pockets for years. NFL.com's schedule is also idiotic...when you click the schedule, they don't give what network is or might be carrying the game, you get Sirius radio times. Who cares about that crap? It's another ripoff.

[Garcia Bronco]

Sirius is a great product. If anyone is interested in getting sat radio....you should go with Sirius. Not only does Sirius carry all NFL games, but they also have me as a stock holder. :)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Sirius is a great product. If anyone is interested in getting sat radio....you should go with Sirius. Not only does Sirius carry all NFL games, but they also have me as a stock holder. :)
Sirius is about to go boobies up.

[TexanBob]

Garcia's their ONLY stockholder...other than John Madden.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Garcia's their ONLY stockholder...other than John Madden.
XM isn't going to survive either. Unless one buys out the other they're both dead and even then I'm not sure if they can make it.

[Taco John]

Garcia's their ONLY stockholder...other than John Madden.



I'm holding Sirius stock... I'm still up on it. Probably just going to hold onto it.

[rbackfactory80]

I have NFL network and direct tv but do not have the ticket. Even without the ticket I have not had to leave my house more then twice to see the Broncos play this year because of getting east and west coast channels. However I think they should have games be offered, similar to pay-per-view movies where you pay somewhere from 3.99 to 5.99 a game. That would be a good option I believe.

[Taco John]

Speaking of which, anybody know of any retail that's down right now?

[Cito Pelon]

When I read posts like this, it confirms for me that people just don't understand this issue. The NFL doesn't want their network to be a premium package. They want it to be the standard fare. They are trying to compete with ESPN. Time/Warner are the folks that want it to be a premium package, not the NFL.

I thought the NFLN was asking premium price and wanting it on the cheaper packages.

In any case, I don't see how the cable only offerings are going to be able to make money on what they offer for the games. I don't think the ad slots are going for nearly as much as the broadcast networks get. ESPN doesn't get to as many households as the big 4. In fact, ESPN is not on the basic cable package here, it's the next level up.

[Garcia Bronco]

Sirius is about to go boobies up.

I literally have peanuts in there.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm holding Sirius stock... I'm still up on it. Probably just going to hold onto it.
Didn't you say you were a Jim Cramer fan?

------------------------------------------------------
The Score

<table border="0"><tbody><tr> <td width="50">
</td> <td>http://cramerwatch.org/themes/cramerwatch/images/jim-small.gif</td><td>http://cramerwatch.org/themes/cramerwatch/images/leonard-small.gif</td> </tr> <tr> <td>http://cramerwatch.org/themes/cramerwatch/images/good-small.jpg</td> <td align="center">49.81 %</td> <td align="center">49.58 %</td> </tr> <tr> <td>http://cramerwatch.org/themes/cramerwatch/images/bad-small.jpg</td> <td align="center">50.17 %</td> <td align="center">50.44 %</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="50">http://cramerwatch.org/themes/cramerwatch/images/roi-small.jpg</td> <td align="center">0.21 %</td> <td align="center">0.27 %</td></tr></tbody></table>

Looks like he's just a hair better than the monkey... or wait a minute. Leonard the Wonder Monkey has a better ROI.

http://www.cramerwatch.org/aboutcramerwatch.html

[LGM]

When I read posts like this, it confirms for me that people just don't understand this issue. The NFL doesn't want their network to be a premium package. They want it to be the standard fare. They are trying to compete with ESPN. Time/Warner are the folks that want it to be a premium package, not the NFL.

Not to mention the network contracts that guarantee certain matchups and games (depending on sellouts, etc.).

NFLN won't be "taking away" any free broadcasting.

They have only "flexed" games that were not "owned" by any other network, and on top of that have expanded the coverage of games shown per week.

I love their idea to expand the coverage, and think it's only fair that ESPN not have a monopoly of basic cable coverage.

[LGM]

I thought the NFLN was asking premium price and wanting it on the cheaper packages.

In any case, I don't see how the cable only offerings are going to be able to make money on what they offer for the games. I don't think the ad slots are going for nearly as much as the broadcast networks get. ESPN doesn't get to as many households as the big 4. In fact, ESPN is not on the basic cable package here, it's the next level up.

NFLN is asking about .50 cents less per subscriber than ESPN is asking. Time Warner doesn't want to pay that much to add them to basic coverage, because that makes it less profitable for them.

It's not just the ad slots. It's national exposure for teams like Cleveland, etc., who don't have huge recognition.

It's about marketing players, teams, and therefore, NFL licensed product.

[youcandoit1687]

haha while people with NFL gameplan and all that are complaining about not getting the game, i have the game on TWO CHANNELS. same telecast and everything just on two different channels. both are hi-def channels, channel 919 INHD and 925 HDSE. its retarded

oh and did anybody else hear dick vermeil with laringitis doing the color analysis. they must have gotten rid of him at the half because then it was like marshall and deion i think.

[Rock Chalk]

I agree with that. I don't want a dime of my bill going towards the support of MTV.

See, just keep posting, eventually you will say something intelligent. I admire your perseverance ;D

[gunns]

I'd forgotten how much Gumbel sucks til this year. Yech.

Me too.

[Hogan11]

Point of fact: The Shopping channels and some of the fundy Christian channels actually *lower* your bill because they PAY carriers to show their channel. For the shopping channels, it's exposure. More eyeballs mean more sales. They pay your provider to put their programming on the air. It's factored into the cost of their products. For fundy channels, they take that "spreading the gospel" stuff seriously and have benefactors who donate money believing they might touch some soul searching for God.

As for ala carte pricing, surveys have been done where customers are asked "how much would you personally pay just for ESPN (or TBS or History or Lifetime, etc)?" and the total people will claim they are willing to pay adds up to more than they are actually paying for cable and yet they will still b**** about their cable bill being too high.

TJ wants to paint the NFL as the little sisters of the poor when actually they are trying to bully other businesses into carrying their channel on terms some of the carriers find unacceptable. It's a shame that fans are caught in the middle but the wrath should be targeted at the NFL, which is now branching out into bowl games as a way of trying to put more pressure on. You'd think the NFL would be a sufficient source to interest carriers on its own but apparently not since they also have to strong arm fans of Rutgers, Kansas State and Texas Tech in their attempt to get carriage on their own terms.

TexanBob lays down some truth and gets nothing but cricket noises.....it's like shouting into a void, no one wants to hear the real thing, so they just ignore it like it was never posted.

[Taco John]

Didn't you say you were a Jim Cramer fan?

------------------------------------------------------
The Score

<table border="0"><tbody><tr> <td width="50">
</td> <td>http://cramerwatch.org/themes/cramerwatch/images/jim-small.gif</td><td>http://cramerwatch.org/themes/cramerwatch/images/leonard-small.gif</td> </tr> <tr> <td>http://cramerwatch.org/themes/cramerwatch/images/good-small.jpg</td> <td align="center">49.81 %</td> <td align="center">49.58 %</td> </tr> <tr> <td>http://cramerwatch.org/themes/cramerwatch/images/bad-small.jpg</td> <td align="center">50.17 %</td> <td align="center">50.44 %</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="50">http://cramerwatch.org/themes/cramerwatch/images/roi-small.jpg</td> <td align="center">0.21 %</td> <td align="center">0.27 %</td></tr></tbody></table>

Looks like he's just a hair better than the monkey... or wait a minute. Leonard the Wonder Monkey has a better ROI.

http://www.cramerwatch.org/aboutcramerwatch.html


I like Kramer. The monkey is amusing, but hardly notable. Kramer's recommendations aren't based on a 30 day selling philosophy.

Everyone who got out of the market with Kramer before the big tech collapse got out with money. Meanwhile, everyone else was telling people to buy, buy, buy.

[ksBRONCOfan]

I've got Cox cable and the only way to get NFLN is to upgrade to digital cable and buy the expanded sports package. Once its all said and done you're paying 80 bucks a month.

[LGM]

TexanBob lays down some truth and gets nothing but cricket noises.....it's like shouting into a void, no one wants to hear the real thing, so they just ignore it like it was never posted.

Maybe because the void is correct.

1. NFLN wants to be paid per subscriber just under what ESPN gets paid. Time Warner and a few others in the NE are the only ones balking at this.

2. The Texas bowl and Rutger's game is FREE to those who don't subsribe to the NFLN for a few weeks in December - part of their promo packaging. So the only reason the people in the NE might not get it is because Time Warner won't carry it.

3. I've said both of these things before, so believe me, I know exactly what you mean about "laying down the truth" and being ignored.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

On a related note....

------------------------------------------------
FCC to vote on cable competition measure (http://tinyurl.com/yzarwc)
By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer Sun Dec 17, 5:20 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Cable television rates keep going up while prices for other communications services are going down, says the nation's chief communications regulator, and he blames local governments for blocking competition.

On Wednesday, the Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote on whether to make it easier for competitors to obtain cable franchises.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, in speeches over the past few weeks, has said local franchise authorities at times "obstruct and in some cases completely derail" new attempts to bring video competition to an area.

His proposal is backed by Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc., which have poured billions of dollars into rewiring their old telecommunications networks so they can deliver television programming and other services.

The measure has alarmed local franchising authorities that have heard Martin's remarks. They contend his "barrier to entry" argument is bogus and action by the agency may wind up hurting consumers.

At stake is the battle for America's television watchers. And people in the United States watch a lot of television.

The FCC reports that the average U.S. household tuned in for eight hours and 11 minutes each day in the 2004 and 2005 fall television seasons.

The latest statistics indicate there are 109.6 million television households and 94.2 million of them subscribe to a pay television service such as cable or satellite.

Martin is using public resentment over rising cable prices to sell his proposal. He is expected to release a report at Wednesday's meeting that says cable rates have risen 93 percent from 1995 to 2005.

Not surprisingly, the cable industry rejects Martin's pricing argument. Kyle McSlarrow, president and chief executive of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, said looking strictly at video prices misses the big picture.

He said Martin's argument is "disappointing" and displays a "complete lack of understanding" of today's market. McSlarrow said customers who subscribe to "triple play" bundles of video, high-speed Internet and telephone service are paying less for their services than a decade ago.

___

On the Net:

Federal Communications Commission: http://www.fcc.gov

National Cable & Telecommunications Association: http://www.ncta.com/