Scooby Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 The NFL network kept showing the commercial about mean cable. But they got it wrong, i think. The commercial said that cable "wanted you to pay for channels that you don't want" and then the old guy blames a women's network and says something about serving in Korea (fyi so did my dad). Are women cable subscribers paying for all the channels that they want? Is it only men who pay cable bills? Are Korean War vets better than women and are not subject to paying for only those channels that they want? I digress...HERE IS THE THING...The cable companies want the NFL Network to be on Tier I or II where the consumer pays like 9.99 extra for the channels. ISN'T that paying for channels that you DO WANT, whether you were in Korea or not? And wouldn't the cable companies have to increase their basic cable rate if they had to pay the NFL Network for access. SEEMS TO ME that no matter how you spin in, the NFL Network gets all the money and we pay for it. And the commercial only turns me off more from the NFL. What's up with that? oh yeah, and the Korea thing? Doesn't the NFL look like they are tattle tales or little bitches or something like that, crying "it's not fair we don't get to make all the money" like a little spoiled selfish brat would who thinks only of themselves but lies to you and tells you that it is really hurting you hoping to get you to fight their battles for their gain?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 The NFL network kept showing the commercial about mean cable. But they got it wrong, i think. The commercial said that cable "wanted you to pay for channels that you don't want" and then the old guy blames a women's network and says something about serving in Korea (fyi so did my dad). Cable companies aren't mean they're greedy. I am forced to subscribe to many channels I don't ever watch. For years cable companies prevented local channels being on satellite. Nothing new here. They couldn't care less about what their subscribers want. Such is the case with monopolies like cable. I say alacarte channels and competition in cable markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major-tom Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I agree those commercials didn't help sway public opinion their way. We all know that cable companies(especially Comcast) are the devil but there are enough games on basic cable for most fans to stay happy. If the NFL gets too greedy it will only end up hurting their product in the end, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 everybody's greedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 everybody's greedy. Well sure. They are all profit driven companies but Directv treats its customers better than any other company I've been with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Well sure. They are all profit driven companies but Directv treats its customers better than any other company I've been with. +1 DirecTV is a godsend. If it wasn't for them, I'd be forced to watch cowboys games all year... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Don't live your life based around what is on TV. You are paying for options with your cable service, but none of those options should have power over your life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 (edited) I don't think that the cooking channels or the chick flick channels tell the cable companies how to run their business. I'm not a fan of dragging Korean Vets into the NFL's business decisions. Goodell was asked to discuss the NFL Network. He said that it is for the fans. If that's the case, then it wouldn't be an exclusive display of NFL games. Edited December 30, 2007 by MikesVikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 So how are you all liking this new tough Commish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 So how are you all liking this new tough Commish? Didn't Games on the NFL Network precede the new tough commish? I'll give him a pass for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Don't live your life based around what is on TV. You are paying for options with your cable service, but none of those options should have power over your life. I have a DVR too. It's great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I agree those commercials didn't help sway public opinion their way. Meh -- they'd lost me before the commercials ... I'd fight to get NFL Network if they didn't pollute their telecast with Deion Sanders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Goodell was asked to discuss the NFL Network. He said that it is for the fans. If that's the case, then it wouldn't be an exclusive display of NFL games. ...and they'd have a COMPETENT play-by-play man as opposed to the heinous Gumbel. ...and they'd make certain that it was available on the basic tier to ALL households. ...and they'd make the Sunday Ticket, if not an a la carte on-demand of what game(s) you want to watch that week, at least a service available on ALL television providers as opposed to a DTV exclusive. I love the product, but c'mon commish, don't give me lip service about "the fans" - from all I've seen, the major sports leagues generally see the fans as schlubs to be exploited for every last thin dime. And since we fans aren't about to revolt - far from it - they're just gonna keep on keepin' on, which is the smart move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I am forced to subscribe to many channels I don't ever watch. For years cable companies prevented local channels being on satellite. Nothing new here. They couldn't care less about what their subscribers want. Such is the case with monopolies like cable. I say alacarte channels and competition in cable markets. How are you forced to pay? Is this the same as taxes? What you are doing is paying for an option - it is not compulsory to buy cable TV, you can get all the networks for free. How is bundling cable different from all those packages you can add when you buy a new car? You can't split those apart and only have, say, the moonroof and the rear speakers. It simply makes economic sense to bundle cable channels because a la carte would eliminate over 50% of them and I doubt the overall price would drop anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 How are you forced to pay? Is this the same as taxes? What you are doing is paying for an option - it is not compulsory to buy cable TV, you can get all the networks for free. How is bundling cable different from all those packages you can add when you buy a new car? You can't split those apart and only have, say, the moonroof and the rear speakers. It simply makes economic sense to bundle cable channels because a la carte would eliminate over 50% of them and I doubt the overall price would drop anyway. It makes economic sense for who? Not for me. I would much rather pay real costs for the channels I actually use. I buy heating from a local utility too but I'm not forced to buy oil and natural gas. I am charged for what I actually use. I have options for 4 packages. My options for local channels are stations in another state or none. Everyone should give more choices than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 It makes economic sense for who? Not for me. I would much rather pay real costs for the channels I actually use. I buy heating from a local utility too but I'm not forced to buy oil and natural gas. I am charged for what I actually use. I have options for 4 packages. My options for local channels are stations in another state or none. Everyone should give more choices than that. And what if the "channels you actually use" are amongst the ones axed because of a la carte? How do you know the ones you want aren't vulnerable? A la carte will most definitely eliminate many channels, thus reducing viewing options, not increasing them. The comparison to heating is not valid - unless you're an Inuit, it's compulsory for the sustenance of life. Cable options are not. And as a reminder, satellite also bundles everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 And what if the "channels you actually use" are amongst the ones axed because of a la carte? How do you know the ones you want aren't vulnerable? A la carte will most definitely eliminate many channels, thus reducing viewing options, not increasing them. The comparison to heating is not valid - unless you're an Inuit, it's compulsory for the sustenance of life. Cable options are not. And as a reminder, satellite also bundles everything. I don't get any free channels. I live 85 miles away from the nearest broadcast station. I can't get any local stations from my own states. Congressional laws prohibit it. Tell me how that makes sense. As for losing stations in ala carte I can live with losing some. The comparison to heating may not be valid for you but it is valid. Both are heating items as the stations in my package are TV stations. Why are you against choice? All I want is more choice than 4 basic packages. I don't mind paying for some I don't use but do mind paying for 60 when I watch 15. I also want a choice of 1 local TV station in the same state where I live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 The comparison to heating may not be valid for you but it is valid. Both are heating items as the stations in my package are TV stations. Not really. Heating is a necessity. Cable is very much not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.