Easy n Dirty Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Just a small point of clarification - the 70 cents that the NFL is asking for would be the cable company's cost. The rate increase to the subscriber would likely be closer to $1.50 at a minimum, maybe closer to $2.00. The cable industry on average has a 65% margin or so on pure programming (i.e., before incorporating other direct costs like customer care, which are substantial). And bumping off 1 or 2 other channels to make room for the NFL Network is not that easy as most of the channels on the basic tier have a contractal right to be carried on basic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted December 15, 2006 Author Share Posted December 15, 2006 Just a small point of clarification - the 70 cents that the NFL is asking for would be the cable company's cost. The rate increase to the subscriber would likely be closer to $1.50 at a minimum, maybe closer to $2.00. The cable industry on average has a 65% margin or so on pure programming (i.e., before incorporating other direct costs like customer care, which are substantial). And bumping off 1 or 2 other channels to make room for the NFL Network is not that easy as most of the channels on the basic tier have a contractal right to be carried on basic. If they need a make a profit on the increased cost that's true. Companies don't always do this. Directv and Dish have it on a lower tier and they could do that if they wanted. It's a standoff and both should compromise and may in the end. Maybe a supervisory agency copuld arbitrate this and come up with a fair judgement. I doubt it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Obviously for me to know if this is 100% true, I would've had to of been in the mettings for the pricing negotiations between the NFL Network - Time Warner, Comcast & Charter. Since I wasn't at those various meetings...no...I don't know if it's 100% true. Howver, this has been reported in the Wall Street Journal & run many times by the AP also appearing in the USA Today. In fact, it was reported that when the NFL Network started showing the Thursday Night Games, they upped the rates for those games. Not ONCE has the NFL Network disputed any of the stories of their pricing structure & you know if it was just BS by the cable companies, they would've. The thing that is strange to me is that if indeed NFL Network is asking for such a high price, how come Dish has it in it's lowest tier? Dish is known for being incredibly stingy when it comes to programming costs and has even dropped channels, temporarily at least, when a channel asks for more. It suprised me when Dish made NFL Network channel available in the lowest tier. There is always 3 sides to the story. In this case, it's the cable companies, the NFL, and the truth. My guess is that the truth is somewhere inbetween what the cable companies are saying and what the NFL isn't saying. The NFL has the upper hand as they have the games and the fans are demanding to see it, so no matter how the cable networks try to spin it, it still looks bad for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 The NFL has the upper hand as they have the games and the fans are demanding to see it, so no matter how the cable networks try to spin it, it still looks bad for them. I'm not so sure this is true. I don't have the NFL Network so I can't see their games... I'm a huge fan of the game, but I'm nowhere near demanding to have the NFL Network. I still see a ton of games for free each year, and from what I understand, even if my team is playing in one of the games on the NFL Network, that game is also provided for free to the local market. Since I've never seen the NFL Network, you could say that i don't know what I'm missing. And until the NFL gets off their high horse with this product, I will continue to not tune in (and not get hooked on their programming). I for one hope that my cable provider stands their ground. I pay way too much as it is IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 What's weird is that the NFL Network gave Comcast the OK to put them on digital cable & on top of that in a special ad on sports package, here in Atlanta. Not sure why the NFL is Ok with the cable companies doing this in certain markets, but then sticking to their demands of being placed on basic cable, in other markets. I'm sure it revolves around more money for the NFL, but without being privy to their books, I don't know the exact reasoning for the double standard. Same here w/ Comcast in the NW. I didn't realize that so many of the cable companies weren't offering the NFL Network. I also got it through Insight back in Indiana a couple years ago, and I think it was though a higher-tier sports package as well. I'm fed up with the NFL and their proprietary bull$hit. If I can get a better deal for TV/internet through my cable company, I'm not going to over-pay to get DirecTV and struggle to get signal in the rain/wind just because the NFL was able to milk more money out of DirecTV than the cable companies. If I really want to watch a particular game that badly, I'll go watch it at the bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysrocking Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Heres what i don't understand in our town we have time warner. I dumped time warner for direct tv which offers nfl sunday ticket as well as some other channels that time warner does not offer and yet my bill is lower than it would be with time warner even with the 2 tivo units i added. This doesn't make since to me to me time warner is just as greedy as the nfl and they are slow on technology direct tv offered dvr's years before they where even offered by the lame cable company. Why more people don't just swittch to direct tv I don't I get great service at a decent price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Heres what i don't understand in our town we have time warner. I dumped time warner for direct tv which offers nfl sunday ticket as well as some other channels that time warner does not offer and yet my bill is lower than it would be with time warner even with the 2 tivo units i added. This doesn't make since to me to me time warner is just as greedy as the nfl and they are slow on technology direct tv offered dvr's years before they where even offered by the lame cable company. Why more people don't just swittch to direct tv I don't I get great service at a decent price. I probably would make the switch if there was an alternative to cable that I could use for a high speed internet connection. Currently in my neighborhood there is not. So, as long as I HAVE to subscribe to cable for my high speed connection, I figure I might was well continue to get my television through them for now as well. For the most part though, I loathe my cable company and feel like they charge about twice as much as they should... but I'm paying it, so I guess I can't blame them for wanting to milk me for all that they can, while they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy n Dirty Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 (edited) Same here w/ Comcast in the NW. I didn't realize that so many of the cable companies weren't offering the NFL Network. I also got it through Insight back in Indiana a couple years ago, and I think it was though a higher-tier sports package as well. I'm fed up with the NFL and their proprietary bull$hit. If I can get a better deal for TV/internet through my cable company, I'm not going to over-pay to get DirecTV and struggle to get signal in the rain/wind just because the NFL was able to milk more money out of DirecTV than the cable companies. If I really want to watch a particular game that badly, I'll go watch it at the bar. ??? I thought NFL Network was new this year, no? EDIT - or is this just the first year that they are carrying certain games exclusively? Edited December 15, 2006 by Easy n Dirty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 ??? I thought NFL Network was new this year, no? EDIT - or is this just the first year that they are carrying certain games exclusively? The first year they are carrying games. The network has been around a few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 If they need a make a profit on the increased cost that's true. Companies don't always do this. Directv and Dish have it on a lower tier and they could do that if they wanted. It's a standoff and both should compromise and may in the end. Maybe a supervisory agency copuld arbitrate this and come up with a fair judgement. I doubt it though. My understanding is that the contract the NFL Network has with satellite, is much less than what they're demanding from the cable companies, due to the huge disparity in the number of subscribers. Satellite has far, far, far less market penetration, than cable does. This is why you see satellite having the NFL Network in their basic package. Again, I understand you saying cable should offer the NFL Network on basic at cost, but as was pointed out to you previously, the general public has already stirred up Congress regarding having to pay for unwanted channels in basic cable packages. There's really only four options right now, of which two are unrealistic. #1) The cable companies show the NFL Network on basic without raising the rates & thus lose tens of millions upon tens of millions of dollars, to satisfy the NFL's demands. (that ain't gonna happen) #2) The cable companies raise the rates of basic to cover the cost of the NFL Network being put on basic & risk being Federally regulated again, due to public outcry (that ain't gonna happen either) #3) The NFL continues their contract demands of charging as a top 5 channel, but allows the cable companies to place their channel appropriately in ALL markets, not just some. #4) The NFL lowers their contract demands from charging as a top 5 channel & are then placed in the basic cable package. One thing worth noting. The NFL states that they should be on basic cable as it is the "right" of every American to see NFL games, without having to pay extra. This argument by the NFL, conveniently ignores the fact that being placed at the basic cable level, still would not make the channel available to all Americans. 16% of all US households (or 48,064,953 households) are strictly air-wave only. These 48,064,953 folks, will never have the "right" to watch football games from the NFL Network (or ESPN for that matter) regardless of where the NFL Network is placed on cable or satellite, so to me, their argument doesn't hold water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted December 15, 2006 Author Share Posted December 15, 2006 The head of NFL Network and the head of Time Warner should settle this in the ring. And leave us all out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 ??? I thought NFL Network was new this year, no? EDIT - or is this just the first year that they are carrying certain games exclusively? It's the first year in which they're carrying the Thursday night games, which is part of the reason that I upgraded to the higher-tier sports package (that and I got the upgrade for free for 3 months). But I'm going to cancel after the season is over and won't do it again next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 One thing worth noting. The NFL states that they should be on basic cable as it is the "right" of every American to see NFL games, without having to pay extra. This argument by the NFL, conveniently ignores the fact that being placed at the basic cable level, still would not make the channel available to all Americans. 16% of all US households (or 48,064,953 households) are strictly air-wave only. These 48,064,953 folks, will never have the "right" to watch football games from the NFL Network (or ESPN for that matter) regardless of where the NFL Network is placed on cable or satellite, so to me, their argument doesn't hold water. The only "right" that the NFL cares about is their right to extort as much money as possible from their viewing audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FishFreak Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Another thing to keep in mind is the NFL Network would only be watched by most people for predominantly 6 months (Aug. thru Jan.) and then a little during the NFL draft. It's tough as a consumer and cable company to pay the extra cost the NFL seems to forcing on them. Like I said typical NFL bully tactics. The 800 pound guerilla has no compettition and can make these types of demands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 The only "right" that the NFL cares about is their right to extort as much money as possible from their viewing audience. Well, as a business (which the NFL is), I understand them wanting to maximise the profits of the most successful sport in the US. However, they might have overreached in their greed this time & their argument of it being the "right" of every American to watch NFL games, is ridiculous. Regardless of how the channel is packaged by cable & satellite, it's still going to exclude close to 50 million households from ever seeing the games NFL Network shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Well, as a business (which the NFL is), I understand them wanting to maximise the profits of the most successful sport in the US. However, they might have overreached in their greed this time & their argument of it being the "right" of every American to watch NFL games, is ridiculous. Regardless of how the channel is packaged by cable & satellite, it's still going to exclude close to 50 million households from ever seeing the games NFL Network shows. Agreed. I'm not criticizing their right to make as much money as the market will allow them to, but I agree they've over-played their hand at this point. The backlash will begin soon. Putting all of their out-of-market games exclusively on DirecTV (MLB, the NHL, and the NBA have theirs on both cable and satellite) and giving EA Sports the exclusive license in video games was bad enough. But they're obviously trying to move ALL of their games to higher-tier satellite/cable packages at this point and that's not going to go over well with Joe Average Fan who doesn't feel like paying for more than basic cable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 I still do not get this, I've seen this mentioned before where the NFL Network wants carriers to only put it in their basic tier... But the only way to get the NFL Network on our Comcast feed is by being subscribed to the digital tier. plus... if you have the nfl ticket, then shouldn't you get a rebate for the games on nfl network since you paid for them on nfl ticket? and they are now included in your service that you pay monthly for? you pay twice for the games on nfl network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mroban Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 NFL Network reviewing counteroffer from TWC NFL.com wire reports NEW YORK (Dec. 13, 2006) -- Time Warner Cable moved closer to reaching a truce with the NFL Network over carrying the Texas Bowl game between Rutgers and Kansas State on Dec. 28. Another New York area cable operator, Cablevision, said Dec. 12 it would carry the Rutgers game after the NFL Network offered both cable companies free carriage for the week of Dec. 24-30. Neither Time Warner nor Cablevision have agreements to carry the network full-time, meaning many Rutgers fans wouldn't be able to watch the matchup at Reliant Stadium in Houston. The NFL Network is available in roughly 40 million of the nation's 111 million homes with televisions in the country, mainly through satellite providers. Time Warner says the network is asking for too much money to carry the network. Time Warner would like to offer the channel on a digital tier, but the NFL Network has declined. Cablevision has also declined the NFL Network's long-term carriage terms so far. Amid the impasse, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told the AP on Dec. 12 the league would offer the network for free to Time Warner and Cablevision from Dec. 24 to 30, which would include the Rutgers game and the Insight Bowl between Minnesota and Texas Tech on Dec. 29. It applies only to systems in the New York area. In a letter to NFL Network president Steve Bornstein, Time Warner Cable's CEO Glenn Britt offered two possibilities: making just the Rutgers game available to all customers on Time Warner's basic tier, or carrying the network all week on a digital tier, which costs extra and is received by about 75 percent of New York City area systems. "That's not our offer and not how free views normally work, but we are reviewing Time Warner's response," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said. So they want to offer a free preview on a premium tier? Any football fan that doesnt have Direct TV deserves whatever they get (unless they live in an area where they cant get Direct TV then I feel bad for them). Cablevision and TWC both are awful greedy companies that nickel and dime their subscribers and offer horrible service and an inferior product. Ill just be thankful I have Direct TV 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.