NFL MAKES OFFER TO TIME WARNER

[Ursa Majoris]

I restrict myself to more conventional means of payment ( ).

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So Time Warner telling you what you can or cannot watch is OK with you?

 

I'll bet you could used to Big Brother having surveillance cameras in your workplace and home too, but who would allow that?

 

 

No, only an hysterical idiot would compare the inconvenient actions of private companies distributing a luxury product, a game, with fundamental privacies being violated by the government. What I am saying is that we made the NFL, not the other way around. We can, through operation of market forces, humble them and the cable giants both if we do not behave like crack addicts that must get our fix.

Edited December 23, 2007 by Ditkaless Wonders

[Outshined]

Who needs the other the most? Cable or NFL? Cable will do just fine without the NFL but the NFL really needs cable. Trying to dictate which tier their product goes on is ridiculous - as far as the cable companies are concerned, there are far more non-football viewers than there are football viewers and that even holds true on Superbowl Sunday. Why should TW and the rest piss their customers off even more than they already do by adding a channel most people flat out don't want and then making them pay for it?

 

+1

 

I have moved recently and I had Comcast and Direct TV. I now have Charter which does not cover the NFL network. I don't miss it because most of it was repeat programming. Having football on 4 days a week is a bit much for my schedule. I won't watch them anyways. I like the traditional Sundays.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

If you had this cable company you'd suck 'em too.

 

 

I appreciate getting value for my dollar as much as the next guy, so long as the next guy is not you.

[Randall]

If they take this to congress I hope they look at monopolies of cable companies. I'd like to see competition in each market similar to what happened with Ma Bell.

 

Adding,

 

I'd like to see ala carte pricing. Most of the channels I'm forced to pick are ones I would never watch. I only watch a small percentage of the package I have and would rather pay for what I actually watch.

 

 

No, only an hysterical idiot would compare the inconvenient actions of private companies distributing a luxury product, a game, with fundamental privacies being violated by the government. What I am saying is that we made the NFL, not the other way around. Ee can, through opperation of market forces, humble them and the cable giants both if we do not behave like crack addicts that must get our fix.

 

 

 

So fans made the NFL but viewers don't make entertainment companies like cable? It's the same principle. A company is taking choice away. What would either be without paying customers?

Edited December 23, 2007 by Randall

[Scooby]

Hmmmmm.....

 

Of course if the games were broadcast on the free over the air chanells like FOX, ABC, CBS or NBC instead of being solely on the NFL's Network, which is only available to satellite or some cable customers, we wouldn't have Goodell reacting to Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) sending a letter to him threatening to reconsider the sport's exemption from federal antitrust laws, would we?

Yeah, the point is that the NFL has changed everything by cutting out the major networks who provide free broadcasts. What happened to the majors? GREEDY NFL thats what. The whole point of this mess is exactly that...the greedy NFL cut out the free broadcasts and now they want to blame it on cable. Shame shame NFL.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Yeah, the point is that the NFL has changed everything by cutting out the major networks who provide free broadcasts. What happened to the majors? GREEDY NFL thats what. The whole point of this mess is exactly that...the greedy NFL cut out the free broadcasts and now they want to blame it on cable. Shame shame NFL.

 

 

They have been looking for a way to kill the golden goose for some time now.

 

The NFL would do well to remember that Boxing was once the king of T.V. sports, then wrestling, then baseball and the NBA. All tumbled through arrogance. There is one constancy in sport, and that is that it is the everyman, the average Joe that makes it and he will break it too if it serves him. My entertainment dollar will get spent where I get the most satisfaction. I have turned away from baseball and the NBA, and I can turn away from football as well. Maybe I'll start watchingmore MMA competitions, maybe soccor, the worlds game will capture me, maybe NASCAR's charm which is surging in popularity will stop eluding me. maybe I'll even go back and give one of my old passions a new run. I actually watched part of an NBA game last month and was not thoroughly revolted, I saw some passing and even the suggestion of some defense.

[Big Score 1]

If they take this to congress I hope they look at monopolies of cable companies. I'd like to see competition in each market similar to what happened with Ma Bell.

Little naive there aren't you Randall?

 

In 1884 Ma Bell got broken up into Ma Bell (AT&T - Long Distance) & the Baby Bell's (Regional ~ 7 to begin with, now down to 3 {AT&T, Verizon & Qwest}).

 

Guess what you had for Regional phone service after the Ma Bell break up? Monopoly service from your Baby Bell as there was no competition.

 

But I do understand your frustration Randall.

 

However Congress simply can't make some company come into a city & starting from scratch, wire that entire metro area with cable / fiber optics in the hopes that they'll pull enough market share from the established cable company to first break even & then eventually make a profit.

 

The cost of establishing the intial infratructure vs the pay back time, just isn't financially feasible.

[Scooby]

No, only an hysterical idiot would compare the inconvenient actions of private companies distributing a luxury product, a game, with fundamental privacies being violated by the government. What I am saying is that we made the NFL, not the other way around. We can, through operation of market forces, humble them and the cable giants both if we do not behave like crack addicts that must get our fix.

HEAR HEAR, well said. What about the free broadcast companies? Who says who they can televise? You guessed it, the NFL. That is why they get the crappy games.

[Big Score 1]

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., said a decision about whether most Vermonters will be able to watch the New York Giants against the New England Patriots football game on Dec. 29 on over-the-air television could come as early as today.

 

Leahy said he spoke by phone Wednesday afternoon with National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell, who promised to respond today to the concerns expressed by the senior senator that Vermonters would be blocked from seeing the possibly historic game. The game, which could complete an undefeated regular season, is restricted to the NFL Network.

 

The phone conversation followed a second letter signed by Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and co-signed by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the ranking member of the committee. The letter stated it might be time for Congress to study whether the NFL should continue to receive antitrust exemption.

 

"The NFL appears to be moving incrementally closer to limiting distribution of its programming to subscription television," they wrote.

 

"Now that the NFL is adopting strategies to limit distribution of game programming to their own networks, Congress may need to reexamine the need and desirability of their continued exemption from the Nation's antitrust laws."

[Ursa Majoris]

The letter stated it might be time for Congress to study whether the NFL should continue to receive antitrust exemption.

 

It's long past time that both football and baseball joined the rest of US businesses. These exemptions are ludicrous.

[Big Score 1]

Here's a letter from Sen John Kerry to Goddell.

December 24, 2007

Mr. Roger Goodell

Commissioner

National Football League

280 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10017

 

 

Dear Commissioner Goodell,

 

As a Bostonian, I couldn't be more pleased that in just five days, the New England Patriots will attempt to become the first NFL team in 35 years to finish the regular season with an undefeated record. But as someone who represents all of Massachusetts and not just those in the Boston media market, I remain deeply troubled that today as many as 250,000 Massachusetts households, and millions of Patriots fans nationwide, may be denied access to this historic sporting event.

 

Despite an unwillingness by both sides to strike a compromise that best meets the interest of the fans, there remain several options for making this game widely available. One option is found in what is referred to as the NFL's "flex schedule", which permits the League to switch the currently scheduled Sunday night NBC game for a game of broader public appeal. Electing to air the game on NBC would ensure that every television in America has access to such a historic game. Throughout the season, the NFL has made this decision with respect to other games of high importance and broad national interest.

 

For a game of this significance to be used as a bargaining chip or point of leverage between corporations locked in a dispute would say a great deal about the esteem in which America's football fans are held by the big interests. Under the unfortunate circumstance that this matter remains unresolved, leaving 60 percent of households across the country - including thousands in Massachusetts - without access to Saturday's game, I will ask the Senate Commerce Committee to hold hearings on how the emergence of premium sports channels are impacting the consumer, and I will consider what legislative measures may be necessary to ensure that consumers are more than bystanders in this process.

 

I hope very much to see a satisfactory solution achieved. I've offered - and my offer stands - to convene a meeting of all parties with the goal of reaching an 11th hour solution. I hope it is not too late to get something done for fans everywhere. Thank you for consideration of this request.

 

Sincerely,

 

John F. Kerry

United States Senate

With the Flex option readily available, Goddell is definitely using this game as a bargaining chip to force Cable Company's to carry the NFL Network at the expense of John Q Public.

[Pirate lookin' at 40]

If they take this to congress I hope they look at monopolies of cable companies. I'd like to see competition in each market similar to what happened with Ma Bell.

 

Adding,

 

I'd like to see ala carte pricing. Most of the channels I'm forced to pick are ones I would never watch. I only watch a small percentage of the package I have and would rather pay for what I actually watch.

So fans made the NFL but viewers don't make entertainment companies like cable? It's the same principle. A company is taking choice away. What would either be without paying customers?

 

 

Ala Carte programming would be too costly. The idiots in politics who propose such things think that it can be done easily and cheaply. If you really want to drive up the cost of cable, then do ala carte. The cost will sky rocket. It looks good on paper, but that's it.

 

Cable companies have to pay for the right to show certain channels, the most expensive being ESPN. If the NFL got what they were asking for, they would rank second and there simply isn't that kind of demand. I would gladly pay the extra amount that would be added to my bill, but many others would not. Just like if I had to pay an extra dollar a month so that they could show the Soap Opera Network. I wouldn't like that at all and I can certainly understand that there are people who feel the same about NFL.

[Bill Swerski]

What a shock. TW rejected the offer.

 

Goodell wrote in a letter yesterday to Glenn A. Britt, president and chief executive of Time Warner Cable, that the league is willing to have the dispute resolved by binding, "baseball-style" arbitration. Each side would submit a final offer to an arbitrator regarding pricing and distribution of the NFL Network, and the arbitrator would choose one of the proposals. Because the arbitration process could be lengthy, Goodell wrote, the league would allow Time Warner to distribute the NFL Network to all its customers immediately if the cable carrier agrees to submit the dispute to arbitration. The NFL's offer will remain open through Dec. 28, Goodell wrote.

 

While I share your general contempt for the cable companies, I agree with Blitz here.

 

I think the NFL is trying to bully it's way into the basic tier where most people will have to pay for a product they don't want.

 

The NFL has no business telling cable companies which tier they should put their product on. Goodell & Co. are clearly the bullies here (also note how they pimp DirecTV and Dish Network on NFL.com to trash THEIR competition ) and, frankly, I think that their elitist attitude is reflected very clearly in the way that they're limiting access to average fans (ridiculous ticket prices, games in Britain/Mexico/Japan, moving games to their own network, etc.).

[WaterMan]

Welcome to Big Business Post George W!

[budlitebrad]

I can't wait to see which games are on NFLN next season if there is no resolution. Cowboys vs Packers at Lambeau? Pats vs Colts?

[Big Score 1]

The NFL has arranged with broadcast television partners CBS and NBC for an unprecedented three-way national simulcast of the NFL Network telecast of Saturday night’s New England Patriots at New York Giants game when the Patriots will try to become the first NFL team to go 16-0 in a regular season, NFL Commissioner ROGER GOODELL announced today.

 

“We have taken this extraordinary step because it is in the best interest of our fans,” Commissioner Goodell said. “What we have seen for the past year is a very strong consumer demand for NFL Network. We appreciate CBS and NBC delivering the NFL Network telecast on Saturday night to the broad audience that deserves to see this potentially historic game. Our commitment to the NFL Network is stronger than ever.”

 

Translation:

 

"We have taken this extraordinary step because it is in the best interest of our fans, some Senators in Congress were looking at taking away our anti-trust exemption” Commissioner Goodell said. “What we have seen for the past year is a very strong consumer Time Warner failing to cave to our demand for NFL Network to be broadcast on basic cable at the ridiculous rate we want to charge."

[Randall]

Translation:

 

"We have taken this extraordinary step because it is in the best interest of our fans, some Senators in Congress were looking at taking away our anti-trust exemption” Commissioner Goodell said. “What we have seen for the past year is a very strong consumer Time Warner failing to cave to our demand for NFL Network to be broadcast on basic cable at the ridiculous rate we want to charge."

 

 

I think they want fans to get the games and are countering cables claims more than what congress may do. It seems to be a PR war now with both sides saying the other is the problem.

 

75 cents a channel is a ridiculous charge? What I find ridiculous is having to pay $60 and having to take Nik, the food network and shopping channels when I only watch 10% of what they make me subscribe to.

 

I'd love to pay 75 cents for each channel I actually watch.

[Big Score 1]

I think they want fans to get the games and are countering cables claims more than what congress may do. It seems to be a PR war now with both sides saying the other is the problem.

 

75 cents a channel is a ridiculous charge? What I find ridiculous is having to pay $60 and having to take Nik, the food network and shopping channels when I only watch 10% of what they make me subscribe to.

 

I'd love to pay 75 cents for each channel I actually watch.

On a fantasy football board the vast majority of us would have no problem in paying the extra .75 per month that the NFLN wants per viewer. However what most of us on this board fail to see, is that the NFLN is in reality, a seasonal niche chanell and is not a neccessity chanell for a LOT of people.

 

To put it in perspective, the Food Chanell & various shopping chanells are charging the Cable companys something like .03 to .01 per viewing customer & have a year round audience.

 

NFLN is wanting to charge the cable company's a per customer rate which would make them the 4th most expensive chanell. Tough sell for basically what amounts to a seasonal niche chanell, don't you think?

[Randall]

On a fantasy football board the vast majority of us would have no problem in paying the extra .75 per month that the NFLN wants per viewer. However what most of us on this board fail to see, is that the NFLN is in reality, a seasonal niche chanell and is not a neccessity chanell for a LOT of people.

 

To put it in perspective, the Food Chanell & various shopping chanells are charging the Cable companys something like .03 to .01 per viewing customer & have a year round audience.

 

NFLN is wanting to charge the cable company's a per customer rate which would make them the 4th most expensive chanell. Tough sell for basically what amounts to a seasonal niche chanell, don't you think?

 

 

I hope you don't get your information from the cable companies.

 

If that was true why did Time Warner refuse binding arbitration?

 

From Wikpedia

 

On June 14, 2007, United States Representatives Dan Lipinski (Democratic, Illinois) and Jeff Fortenberry (Republican, Nebraska) introduced into legislation the Family and Consumer Choice Act of 2007, which intends to allow families to choose and pay for only the cable television channels that they want to watch.[5]

 

Subscriber Fees

In order to support themselves, cable channels charge "subscriber fees" in addition to airing commercials. These fees are collected directly from the cable company, who passes the cost onto the customer. The fee the cable TV system must pay to a cable TV channel will vary depending on whether it is a basic or premium channel and the perceived popularity of that channel. Because cable TV systems are not required to carry cable channels, they may negotiate the fee they will pay for carrying a channel, thus more popular cable channels are able to command higher fees than less popular channels. For example, ESPN charges $2.90 per subscriber per month in order to support its airing of sports events. Other cable channels charge, on average, 50-60 cents per subscriber per month. [6] The excess funds collected from subscriber fees can net cable channels an extra billion dollars per year. [7]

 

Monthly Subscriber Fees (in cents)

8 Cartoon Network

33 Nickelodeon

44 CNN

60 USA

60 FOX News

80 Disney Channel

89 TNT

290 ESPN

Edited December 29, 2007 by Randall

[Big Score 1]

I hope you don't get your information from the cable companies.

 

If that was true why did Time Warner refuse binding arbitration?

 

From Wikpedia

 

On June 14, 2007, United States Representatives Dan Lipinski (Democratic, Illinois) and Jeff Fortenberry (Republican, Nebraska) introduced into legislation the Family and Consumer Choice Act of 2007, which intends to allow families to choose and pay for only the cable television channels that they want to watch.[5]

 

Subscriber Fees

In order to support themselves, cable channels charge "subscriber fees" in addition to airing commercials. These fees are collected directly from the cable company, who passes the cost onto the customer. The fee the cable TV system must pay to a cable TV channel will vary depending on whether it is a basic or premium channel and the perceived popularity of that channel. Because cable TV systems are not required to carry cable channels, they may negotiate the fee they will pay for carrying a channel, thus more popular cable channels are able to command higher fees than less popular channels. For example, ESPN charges $2.90 per subscriber per month in order to support its airing of sports events. Other cable channels charge, on average, 50-60 cents per subscriber per month. [6] The excess funds collected from subscriber fees can net cable channels an extra billion dollars per year. [7]

 

Monthly Subscriber Fees (in cents)

8 Cartoon Network

33 Nickelodeon

44 CNN

60 USA

60 FOX News

80 Disney Channel

89 TNT

290 ESPN

Not sure I understand your post here.

 

Going by the above rates you just posted, with the NFLN wanting .75 per subscriber, wouldn't that make them the 4th most expensive chanell just like I said?

 

And the 4th most expensive chanell being a seasonal niche chanell at that.

[Randall]

Not sure I understand your post here.

 

Going by the above rates you just posted, with the NFLN wanting .75 per subscriber, wouldn't that make them the 4th most expensive chanell just like I said?

 

And the 4th most expensive chanell being a seasonal niche chanell at that.

 

 

No. That's only a few channels on basic cable. I would expect channels on the upper tiers and movie channels to be far more expensive.

[Randall]

I'd just like to see this resolved. TW rejected binding arbitration where both sides pick an arbitrator that looks at the books of both. Both are forced to adhere to his findings and this makes them look bad. I still haven't heard a good explanation why this was rejected. It is done all the time in sports and for businesses.

 

The NFL said while this was being decided the games would be shown.

 

I wish the FCC, congress or someone would force this. From past experience I don't trust cable companies.

[Big Score 1]

No. That's only a few channels on basic cable. I would expect channels on the upper tiers and movie channels to be far more expensive.

The facts of the matter are, the NFL-N which is a seasonal niche chanell, is wanting to be the 4th most expensive chanell per viewer on basic.

 

As far as upper tiers / movie chanells & their costs go, that is irellevant as it relates to the NFL-N's demands for being the 4th most expensive chanell on basic.

 

You also asked why TW refused the NFL-N's offer of binding arbitration. Simple really. It's a binding decision of one or the other option & the arbitrator would pick the one he felt "most fair".

 

Why would TW even consider such a crazy proposal?

 

In the off chance the arbitrator selected the NFL-N's proposal, TW would be stuck with a terrible deal, while other cable companys, such as Comcast / Cox Cable, can put the NFL-N on sports tier packages. Crazy business model to allow an arbitrator to decide your programing fees & definitely opening up TW to big time lawsuits from shareholders if they had accepted the binding arbitration offer.

[Big Score 1]

I'd just like to see this resolved. TW rejected binding arbitration where both sides pick an arbitrator that looks at the books of both. Both are forced to adhere to his findings and this makes them look bad. I still haven't heard a good explanation why this was rejected. It is done all the time in sports and for businesses.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any business models where contractural decisions were based upon binding arbitration.

 

Non-binding arbitration yes, but not binding arbitration.