JS-Cowboy Owner Pulls for NFL Network

[Bretsky]

Cowboys owner pulls for NFL Network
Some state residents won't get his team's game vs. Packers
By DON WALKER
dwalker@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Nov. 7, 2007
Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, feels your pain, Green Bay Packers fans.

But in a telephone interview Wednesday from Cowboys country, Jones said he's not optimistic a solution to the ongoing dispute between the NFL Network and major cable carriers will be found in time for the Nov. 29 televised matchup between the Cowboys and Packers.

The stalemate means that large areas of Wisconsin will not be able to see what is shaping up to be a key National Football Conference game with possible playoff implications. That's because major cable carriers such as Time Warner Cable and Charter Communications, both major players in Wisconsin, and the NFL Network have been at odds over where the network belongs on the cable spectrum.

The NFL Network, available in only 35 million homes across the country and owned by the National Football League, has the television rights to the game.

Fortunately for Milwaukee and Green Bay, the game will be available on over-the-air television. But for pieces of Wisconsin, particularly in the Madison area, the game will not be available. A number of smaller cable companies around the state have signed agreements to carry the NFL Network.

Still, the lack of an agreement steams football fans as well as the boss man of the Cowboys.

"How often are you going to have an opportunity to see Brett Favre and a really great Green Bay Packers team play an up-and-coming player that has a lot of flair to his game," Jones said Wednesday in referring to Cowboys' quarterback Tony Romo, who grew up in Burlington. "And a Dallas team that is playing well. If you miss that live, you've missed it. And it may not come again."

In recent weeks, Jones has become the NFL's point man on the issue. Jones was named the head of the league's NFL Network Committee, and he has used the bully pulpit to speak out.

To that end, Jones has said football fans ought to drop their cable subscription and sign on with the satellite television companies that carry the NFL Network.

"They're not going to get that game on cable," Jones said. "That's it, and I don't think they are going to get it for this season, and certainly not as it pertains to when the Dallas Cowboys play the Green Bay Packers."

Fans frustrated
In Green Bay, the Packers have been relatively low key about the issue. But Bob Harlan, chairman of the Packers' board, acknowledged that fans are unhappy.

"We have been hearing from our fans in areas of Wisconsin that don't have access to NFL Network, and we know they are frustrated," Harlan said. "Our desire is to have our fans be able to watch all our games, so we share their anxiousness about the situation."

A Time Warner spokeswoman said the company was talking with the NFL. "We continue to work with them in good faith to come up with a mutually beneficial agreement," said spokeswoman Stacy Zaja. "Everything comes down to a cost, and how it relates to the customer. We feel this programming does belong on a sports tier so that customers who want that type of programming can subscribe to it for their home."

Time Warner Cable serves more than 600,000 households in eastern Wisconsin. Charter says it has over 500,000.

Jones said, in Texas, cable companies are playing hardball, telling subscribers that something might get worked out. But Jones said that's not the case, at least not yet.

The battle for the hearts and minds of football fans surfaced last season when the NFL Network had the rights to a Packers-Minnesota Vikings game that left some fans without a way to watch. A similar situation occurred last weekend when the fledgling Big Ten Network, which also has not reached agreement with major cable carriers, had the rights to the University of Wisconsin-Ohio State football game.

Extra costs sought
The NFL Network debate is clear-cut but contentious. Supporters of the NFL Network, who had hoped to be in 50 million homes by now, say they believe the network belongs on expanded basic cable. The major cable companies disagree, saying the network belongs on a special sports tier at an added cost to subscribers.

News reports have suggested that if Time Warner were to place the network on digital basic cable, subscribers would pay from 60 to 80 cents for it per month. It would cost even more if the network were placed on a digital sports tier.

But Jones said the cable companies do not understand there is value to the NFL Network.

"We are reminding our fans as well as anybody we can remind legislatively, that cable companies are obligated to put on the best programming to their standard digital subscribers," Jones said. "There are more than 240 cable companies, plus the satellite companies and the telecoms, plus over the air networks, that recognize the value of NFL games to fans and their customers around the country. We know they are losing subscribers, and they want to gain subscribers. We know how valuable the programming is to them. And in the face of all that, they try to put us on a (sports) tier, and that is not logical."

In Wisconsin and in Texas, state legislators say they will introduce legislation to address the problem. Meanwhile, the NFL has tried to entice the Federal Communications Commission to intervene and provide arbitration. So far, the FCC has not moved on the matter, Jones said.

In the meantime, Jones said, he will continue to be vocal to rally football fans around the country.

"The reason we have a rights fee, the reason why we want to develop this network is to expand fan interest and expand fan availability to our ball games," Jones said. "That's the content. So by building the games and providing real football information and football content, our fans will have a greater benefit. The cable companies want to build an asset for themselves that won't benefit Dallas Cowboys fans."

[Maxie the Taxi]

Jones makes it sound like the NFL is standing on principle, that principle being the good of NFL fans. BS. This is a money issue...a BIG MONEY issue. Millions of dollars are at stake.

Both the big cable companies and the NFL are in this fight because the winner makes millions. Follow the money! Neither of these big money players is in this fight for public service reasons.

[rdanomly]

What I don't get is how the freaking Golf Channel is on my non-fancy cable, but the most popular sport in the nation's dedicated channel isn't.

[The Leaper]

Satellite will even become MORE affordable with recent legal decisions claiming that sales tax on satellite TV service isn't legal in light of the fact that cable is not taxed.

People who do not get satellite are kidding themselves. If it wasn't for the internet service that they can now bundle together with other services, cable companies might have been put out to pasture a few years ago.

Satellite will become the cheaper way to go in the future without question. It is far easier (and cheaper in the long run) to beam large amounts of information through the air than it is to send it through millions of miles of cables...which seem to become obsolete relatively quickly these days.

[mraynrand]

What I don't get is how the freaking Golf Channel is on my non-fancy cable, but the most popular sport in the nation's dedicated channel isn't.

What does the Golf channel cost to put on the cable package? Probably less than Lifetime Network, showing low production value movies like "Sara of the Frontier's Enduring Ennui"


Jones wants you to buy satellite TV, preferably DirecTV HD TV with new dishes and receivers.

Look, I know this stuff isn't cheap, but it looks like a lot of 'fans' are. Fans want to see every game for nothing, and the NFL wants to make as much money as they can. I'll tell you this, if you buy DirecTV and Sunday Ticket, you can watch any damn game you please. I ask the 'fans:' Is it important to you, or not?

[The Leaper]

Jones wants you to buy satellite TV, preferably DirecTV HD TV with new dishes and receivers.

The thing is...if you switch over to satellite the first time, the companies will give you stuff for free. You can get a GREAT deal to switch over. They will come over and set up you up and you won't have to lift a finger. You'll probably have to pay for some basic receivers, which aren't very costly, but they typically offer an upgrade to HD or DVR for free.

It makes no sense to sit around whining when you can get off your ass and get everything you are whining about (NFLN, Big10) by barely lifting a finger.

www.directstartv.com - you get 3 months of free Showtime or Starz...a free HD or DVR receiver...a $50 gift card...Choice Package @ 39.99 a month includes the NFL Network and Big Ten Network in standard definition.

You can get 4 rooms of service...one DVR, one HD and two standard...including installation (so you don't have to lift a DAMN FINGER to set anything up) for $99. Take away the $50 gift card, and it really costs you $49. The cost of monthly service will be $60 a month (because of the DVR and HD service) after that. It would be cheaper if you didn't need HD/DVR...again, $39.99 gets you access to NFLN and BTN.

How is that all that pricey? People spend more to go to a 2 hour concert or fill up a Suburban with gas...hell, going to a bar to see a game you can't get will set you back that much in food and drink if you take your family.

It makes no sense to whine. Either change your service, or stop bitching.

[GBRulz]

It makes no sense to whine. Either change your service, or stop bitching.

Many people can't switch over to satellite for various reasons The most common are apartment complexes and condos. The law states that landlords cannot put a ban on satellite dishes, but they can get past this by saying "no dishes on roof, or only the west side of the building can be used for dish mounting", etc. Lots of my friends have been affected by this and cable is their only option. Also, what about people who have their line of slight blocked by a tree or a building? Satellite isn't an option for them, either.

While I will agree that satellite is the way to go, it's just not available for everyone and they are stuck with cable as their only option. Perhaps keep that in mind before putting everyone in a category as a bunch of whiners.

[The Leaper]

Lots of my friends have been affected by this and cable is their only option. Also, what about people who have their line of slight blocked by a tree or a building? Satellite isn't an option for them, either.

You can mount satellites on a tripod anywhere. How do you think they get them on top of RVs and the like? I'm sure DirecTV has dealt with plenty of landlords before...and will know how to deal with them. Their lawyers are paid far better than a landlord's lawyer. Satellite companies know the loopholes, and local providers will know what works and what doesn't.

As long as you have access to a clear view of the southern sky, you can get access. Low buildings (two stories homes) do not affect the signal. You'd need to be in the middle of a forest to have an issue with that. A few people would fit that description...but if you are that far in the boonies, you probably own enough land to find SOME POINT that has clear access to the southern sky...or you are out fishing/hunting and don't care to watch TV.

The signal comes in at a pretty steep angle...the dish is merely reflecting it toward the arm connector. The signal comes in much higher than where the dish is actually facing. I've seen dishes point directly at 60 foot trees across a street and still get a signal.

Call a satellite company, and trust me, they will find a way to get you up and running. They want your business. That vast majority of people complaining CAN get access to satellite...they just are too lazy to do so.

[MadScientist]

Broadband is also an issue. I'd gladly ditch Charter if I could get DSL, but I can't. I'd much rather live without NFLN than without broadband.

[GBRulz]

Lots of my friends have been affected by this and cable is their only option. Also, what about people who have their line of slight blocked by a tree or a building? Satellite isn't an option for them, either.

You can mount satellites on a tripod anywhere. How do you think they get them on top of RVs and the like? I'm sure DirecTV has dealt with plenty of landlords before...and will know how to deal with them. Their lawyers are paid far better than a landlord's lawyer. Satellite companies know the loopholes, and local providers will know what works and what doesn't.

As long as you have access to a clear view of the southern sky, you can get access. Low buildings (two stories homes) do not affect the signal. You'd need to be in the middle of a forest to have an issue with that. A few people would fit that description...but if you are that far in the boonies, you probably own enough land to find SOME POINT that has clear access to the southern sky...or you are out fishing/hunting and don't care to watch TV.

Call a satellite company, and trust me, they will find a way to get you up and running. They want your business. That vast majority of people complaining CAN get access to satellite...they just are too lazy to do so.

Well, I live smack dab in the middle of the city and until my neighbor cut a tree down, I couldn't get satellite. Otherwise, I'd still be stuck with cable.

More people are denied access than you realize. It has nothing to do with who has better attorneys. Landlords have every right to allow one area of buildings for dish mounting, as long as they aren't disallowing it completely. Many neighborhoods have covenants that don't allow dishes at all.

I know alot of people can get satellite and still bitch, which is probably your point, but my point is that several simply have no choice.

[Tarlam!]

I'll tell you this, if you buy DirecTV and Sunday Ticket, you can watch any damn game you please. I ask the 'fans:' Is it important to you, or not?

I pay 199 a year for all regular season games via a friggin' stream! I have a 17 inch screen.

If I had the option to pay for HD quality/any game I like, you think I wouldn't take it?

There's no free soccer games in Germany, except the Natioal Team games and....well.......that's it!

You wanna watch live soccer games here, you pay at the door.

[mraynrand]

If you're really desperate, you can always go with head-dish:

http://www.tvsnob.com/images/franken-thumb.jpg

[CaliforniaCheez]

Good thing I have a local sports bar with a dozen sattilite dishes and waitresses with implants.

At a cost of $4.00 a beer I watch Packer games with Packer fans. It is better than sitting at home with no one to cheer with.

[wpony]

Its nice to know the nfl is fighting for the fan this time like he said it would only go up 80 or 90 cents a month if they just put it on digital but I have heard numbers all the way from 20 dollars to 40 dollars a month if they did it the way charter wants to do it I love my DISHNETWORK I see all the packer games and badger games and save money and get better pictures and have a dvr

[Maxie the Taxi]

What I don't get is how the freaking Golf Channel is on my non-fancy cable, but the most popular sport in the nation's dedicated channel isn't.

The reason is, or so I've read, The Golf Channel is owned by the cable companies. The NFL Network is not. Therefore, re: the Golf Channel, there's no second party to split the profits with.

[MJZiggy]

The Golf Channel makes a profit?

[Merlin]

Unfortunately for people like me, Charter is the only real high speed internet provider in our area. So I get by with a cheaper internet and cable with a years old bundle that they don't offer anymore. I pay something lik $85 a month for both. If I switch to Dish, I save a lot on the TV end but then I have to subscribe to a $60 high speed internet. Sure, some can get it for something like $20 for 6 months but I am not a "new" customer. So I will end up shelling out even more. I would love nothing more then to dump Charter all together. AT&T offers DSL in my area but I am on the farthest end of their coverage and I cannot get a connection as fast as the lowest speed Charter offers.

Wisconsin is looking to pass legislation that would allow competition across the state. It passed the Senate yesterday and now has to clear the Legislature. Until that passes and until a company thinks our area is worthy of competition, I am afraid I am SOL. If AT&T can provide "consistent" 1.5 Mbps to my area instead of the normal 768 Kbps that my parents down the block get, I am religated to Charter's 3 Mbps, which to me isn't much different in performance 1.5 Mbps. We have wireless networks available but those are even worse at providing a consistent bandwidth. My parents and I are in the same area and I am 2 blocks farther down then them so my service may be spotty at even 768 Kbps. With a dedicated, consistent 1.5 Mbps DSL, you get better performance then with Charter's 3 Mbps service because it isn't a shared connection with other's in your area.

[swede]

What I don't get is how the freaking Golf Channel is on my non-fancy cable, but the most popular sport in the nation's dedicated channel isn't.

"The most popular sport" part is why. It's why ABC doesn't have Monday night football. ESPN paid a bazillion dollars for the rights and they're STILL making money.

As the media landscape changes and the world's youngsters take over people are going to have to pay for their entertainment--and I don't mean by watching Gillete commercials Grandpa.

ATT came to my door, and at my age I've been ripped off by so many people I usually kick everybody out without even hearing their pitch. But they waved the NFL network and the Big Ten network, high speed internet, and a Digital recorder for 85 bucks a month in front of my nose.

Goodbye Charter. You've been outmarketed by the phone company.

I might regret it later, but I'll let you know if I do.

[mraynrand]

What I don't get is how the freaking Golf Channel is on my non-fancy cable, but the most popular sport in the nation's dedicated channel isn't.

"The most popular sport" part is why. It's why ABC doesn't have Monday night football. ESPN paid a bazillion dollars for the rights and they're STILL making money.

ABC and ESPN are owned by the same parent company, Disney. NBC is the company that paid a bazillion for SNF, so they wouldn't be locked out of the FB market. Shows like Desperate Housewives do better than MNF - or at least the combination of MNF on ESPN and DH on ABC does better than MNF on ABC and ice skating on ESPN.

[LL2]

I have to pay an extra $6 bucks to get the NFL network. I pay it because I want it and want to watch the Packers play. I also pay more to get HD. The NFL can play hard ball because they know they have the most in demand sport.

[Merlin]

I've corresponded with both Charter and the NFL. What it boils down to is that Charter knows it's a big money maker for them and they refuse to carry it on basic cable because the real cost to them per subscriber is about $0.18. Because Charter wants to make a hug profit from it, they want to make up a sports tier, something they don't have now, probably for $20 a month. They know that no on will care if their cable bill goes up $0.80 a month if the NFL network is on there. The big money for them is in the sports package and that is the sticking point. The NFL charges what it charges for it's network and the cable companies want to jack up the price because of the high demand and the NFL won't allow that. So in a backwards way, the NFL is looking out for it's fans albeit in a wierd way having the games on NFLN to begiun with.

[swede]

It's why ABC doesn't have Monday night football. ESPN paid a bazillion dollars for the rights and they're STILL making money.

ABC and ESPN are owned by the same parent company, Disney. NBC is the company that paid a bazillion for SNF, so they wouldn't be locked out of the FB market. Shows like Desperate Housewives do better than MNF - or at least the combination of MNF on ESPN and DH on ABC does better than MNF on ABC and ice skating on ESPN.

I never let facts get in the way of a good rant, Mraynrand, but that is a very interesting nugget of info regarding ABC and ESPN.

So did ABC and ESPN bid against each other, or did Disney make the call?

[Tarlam!]

Guess what game is on German Cable tomorrow night? :shock: :jig: :jig: :eyes: :eyes: :five: :knll:

[MJZiggy]

Bills v. Dolphins?



:mrgreen:

[retailguy]

Broadband is also an issue. I'd gladly ditch Charter if I could get DSL, but I can't. I'd much rather live without NFLN than without broadband.

wireless broadband is fairly common and probably available where you live. My father can get it, and he is in the literal "middle of nowhere".

[retailguy]

Unfortunately for people like me, Charter is the only real high speed internet provider in our area.


BULL. You can get wireless broadband in your area for 19.95 to 39.95 per month....

visit this website, then quit your bitching. :wink:

http://www.chibardun.net/

here's a second offering:

http://www.skywalkwireless.com/wircoveragearea.asp

The rest of you? See this website, you can probably get it too from a provider in your area. Together, we CAN put Charter, Comcast and Verizon out of business...

http://www.onelasvegas.com/wireless/WI.html

[GBRulz]

Broadband is also an issue. I'd gladly ditch Charter if I could get DSL, but I can't. I'd much rather live without NFLN than without broadband.

wireless broadband is fairly common and probably available where you live. My father can get it, and he is in the literal "middle of nowhere".

Well, isn't wireless broadband kind of aimed at those who are in the middle of nowhere? Towers are usually constructed in outlying areas, where people are simply too far from the CO for DSL. TDS Metrocom launched this in the Appleton area about two years ago and it's been doing fairly well. Then again, most of those people don't have much of a choice for broadband, either.

[retailguy]

Broadband is also an issue. I'd gladly ditch Charter if I could get DSL, but I can't. I'd much rather live without NFLN than without broadband.

wireless broadband is fairly common and probably available where you live. My father can get it, and he is in the literal "middle of nowhere".

Well, isn't wireless broadband kind of aimed at those who are in the middle of nowhere? Towers are usually constructed in outlying areas, where people are simply too far from the CO for DSL. TDS Metrocom launched this in the Appleton area about two years ago and it's been doing fairly well. Then again, most of those people don't have much of a choice for broadband, either.

Not true. Go to the website and check it out. Most of southern wisc is covered and a great deal of the "north". WISP's are growing like weeds in Chicago right now, and working big deals with apartment buildings and home owners associations. Almost every major Metro area is covered, and covered WELL.

[CaliforniaCheez]

My cable rate would go up 350% if I were to get the NFL network.

Yes more than triple because I must buy every other channel before I can get NFL network. Comcast in my area has it as the ultimate channel in the pyramid.

Sattelite internet is DSL speed and expensive.

My brother near Rice Lake WI gets it as part of his basic package and asks me what is the big deal about it.

[retailguy]

My cable rate would go up 350% if I were to get the NFL network.

Yes more than triple because I must buy every other channel before I can get NFL network. Comcast in my area has it as the ultimate channel in the pyramid.

Sattelite internet is DSL speed and expensive.

My brother near Rice Lake WI gets it as part of his basic package and asks me what is the big deal about it.

Having cable today is like owning an edsel. Satellite is a better option and now the broadband concerns are reduced with wireless broadband. My directtv did not switch games in the 3rd or 4th quarter. Had I wanted to watch any other game, I would have, because they were all there for the watching.... I also have NFL network, and it just costs the basic monthly direct tv fee...

[cpk1994]

I've corresponded with both Charter and the NFL. What it boils down to is that Charter knows it's a big money maker for them and they refuse to carry it on basic cable because the real cost to them per subscriber is about $0.18. Because Charter wants to make a hug profit from it, they want to make up a sports tier, something they don't have now, probably for $20 a month. They know that no on will care if their cable bill goes up $0.80 a month if the NFL network is on there. The big money for them is in the sports package and that is the sticking point. The NFL charges what it charges for it's network and the cable companies want to jack up the price because of the high demand and the NFL won't allow that. So in a backwards way, the NFL is looking out for it's fans albeit in a wierd way having the games on NFLN to begiun with.Wrong. Charter already has a sports tier. They had the NFL Network on there about 3-4 years ago until the NFL pitched a fit. Currently on their sports tier is ESPNNEWS, ESPNU, FCS regional channels & Fox Soccer Channel and a few lesser channels.

[cpk1994]

It's why ABC doesn't have Monday night football. ESPN paid a bazillion dollars for the rights and they're STILL making money.

ABC and ESPN are owned by the same parent company, Disney. NBC is the company that paid a bazillion for SNF, so they wouldn't be locked out of the FB market. Shows like Desperate Housewives do better than MNF - or at least the combination of MNF on ESPN and DH on ABC does better than MNF on ABC and ice skating on ESPN.

I never let facts get in the way of a good rant, Mraynrand, but that is a very interesting nugget of info regarding ABC and ESPN.

So did ABC and ESPN bid against each other, or did Disney make the call?ABC never bid. Becuase of declining ratings, ABC gave it up.

[swede]

It's why ABC doesn't have Monday night football. ESPN paid a bazillion dollars for the rights and they're STILL making money.

ABC and ESPN are owned by the same parent company, Disney. NBC is the company that paid a bazillion for SNF, so they wouldn't be locked out of the FB market. Shows like Desperate Housewives do better than MNF - or at least the combination of MNF on ESPN and DH on ABC does better than MNF on ABC and ice skating on ESPN.

I never let facts get in the way of a good rant, Mraynrand, but that is a very interesting nugget of info regarding ABC and ESPN.

So did ABC and ESPN bid against each other, or did Disney make the call?ABC never bid. Becuase of declining ratings, ABC gave it up.

If ratings were in decline they might have tried producing a football game with a recap of Sunday's action at halftime. Sideline reporters, distracting broadcast booth interviews, and idiotic banter between announcers were production elements invented by ABC in the mistaken assumption that people like that stuff.