Who's to blame? NFLN or the cable companies?

[RashanGary]

The cable companies are starting to run into problems because it costs a lot of money to maintain the infrastructure that goes with running wire to every single house in America and at the same time, they have to keep their base prices down.

NFLN is a good way for them to jack NFL fans out of a couple more dollars and they know they'll pay it. The NFL doesn't want cable to benefit from the popularity of the NFL. They want to benefit from the NFLN's popularity through advertising dollars.

I think we should all be rooting for the NFLN because it gives us what we want for cheaper. Both sides have a case, but the NFL's interest is closer to mine, so I'm siding with them.

[MJZiggy]

You need a box for "I have DirecTV. I don't give a crap."

[Jimx29]

Or, I have Chibardun DSL and don't care.


They both have some valid, and asinine points. Both are nothing more than money grubbing pigs. :)

[HarveyWallbangers]

Both are to blame, but the cable companies have years of shitty deeds to make me vote for them.

[CaliforniaCheez]

How many home jewelry shopping channels do you have??

I've got at least a half dozen Spanish Language channels and 2 Oriental channels where the language varies.

A sports tier group of channels means having to buy a bunch of sports channels that combined do not have the popularity of the NFL. How does the golf channel escape being in the tier?

I would like a la carte channel selection. I only watch 12 regularly and up to 20 on occaision. Why should I have to pay for Lifetime, Food Network, and BET????

I blame cable for forcing "packages" on people. With today's computing capacities they can handle a la carte channel selection.

[Jimx29]

I've been saying for years that the first supplier that comes out with some sort of "a la carte" system would pull thousands of viewers from the competition.

Of course i've been saying this for so many years, and yet no one comes out with it. :?

[Bretsky]

Great Poll Idea

I say Cable w/o a doubt

[MJZiggy]

I've been saying for years that the first supplier that comes out with some sort of "a la carte" system would pull thousands of viewers from the competition.

Of course i've been saying this for so many years, and yet no one comes out with it. :?

Cyberski Cable (somehow Numbnuts Cable sounds all wrong...)

[Jimx29]

I've been saying for years that the first supplier that comes out with some sort of "a la carte" system would pull thousands of viewers from the competition.

Of course i've been saying this for so many years, and yet no one comes out with it. :?

Cyberski Cable (somehow Numbnuts Cable sounds all wrong...)That's cause it's numbnutz :P

[Partial]

NFL. But really both.

[FritzDontBlitz]

NFL. Because even if you get their network on cable they won't allow you to see the games unless you're local market, even though that's why you're paying extra to get the damn network in the first place.

I hope they lose their anti-trust exemption soon, before they start charging us for every marquee matchup we used to get for free.

[hurleyfan]

Cable....

Here in NY, I usually have to watch either the Giants or Jets (one team usually scheduled for 1:00 game, the other @4:00). If G-men are at 1:00 on Fox, the CBS feed gets blocked then at 4:00, the Jets come on CBS, and even if Fox has the double header, that gets blocked in my area.

And now for this Saturday's NFLN game, practically every f'cking channel on t.v. gets the game :evil:

[The Leaper]

NFL. Because even if you get their network on cable they won't allow you to see the games unless you're local market, even though that's why you're paying extra to get the damn network in the first place.

Huh?

The NFL Network games are nationwide viewing. The LOCAL market is actually the only place you might NOT see the game, due to blackout restrictions. Clearly, that would not be an issue in Wisconsin.

[Zool]

It doesnt even matter what we're blaming them for. Charter cable is the worst company I've ever had to deal with.

[Cheesehead Craig]

F 'em all

[cpk1994]

It doesnt even matter what we're blaming them for. Charter cable is the worst company I've ever had to deal with.

I have had no problem with Charter and have been with them for over 10 years, so I guess its case by case on that.

That said, there should be a choice for both, becuase they are both acting like children. Charter had the NFLN on the sports tier for one year a couple of years ago and there wasn't a problem and Charter didn't "jack up" the price as many say they will do.

[Jerry Tagge]

Cable companies want to run local commercials. Nothing wrong with that.

[BooHoo]

I have Dish so I get all the NFLN games. It would be good if they settle this issue this year.

[Zool]

It doesnt even matter what we're blaming them for. Charter cable is the worst company I've ever had to deal with.

I have had no problem with Charter and have been with them for over 10 years, so I guess its case by case on that.

That said, there should be a choice for both, becuase they are both acting like children. Charter had the NFLN on the sports tier for one year a couple of years ago and there wasn't a problem and Charter didn't "jack up" the price as many say they will do.

My cable bill has climbed by $10minimum every year for 4 years in a row. They are to my neighborhood at least monthly fixing a line issue that apparently is recurring. I've not had good luck.

[cpk1994]

How many home jewelry shopping channels do you have??

I've got at least a half dozen Spanish Language channels and 2 Oriental channels where the language varies.

A sports tier group of channels means having to buy a bunch of sports channels that combined do not have the popularity of the NFL. How does the golf channel escape being in the tier?

I would like a la carte channel selection. I only watch 12 regularly and up to 20 on occaision. Why should I have to pay for Lifetime, Food Network, and BET????

I blame cable for forcing "packages" on people. With today's computing capacities they can handle a la carte channel selection.Oh really, then why haven't DirectTV and Dish started al a carte? Can't they handle it too? I guess its just easier to blame something you hate.

[The Leaper]

I've got at least a half dozen Spanish Language channels and 2 Oriental channels where the language varies.

Check those channels out...you might not understand a word they are saying, but they probably have some hot babes wearing next to nothing getting caught in a rainstorm while wearing white cotton outfits.

[RashanGary]

I want the NFLN to get on basic cable because then I'll never have a reason to turn on ESPN again and with the NFLN on basic cable, many people who might not have paid for the sports tier might be lured in to their NFL channel out of curiousity and bam, a new fan is born.


I want the NFL to flourish and getting it's own network broadcast across the entire nation would give them the ability to cut the other networks out of the prime time loop (which includes sinking ESPN on some level)

[digitaldean]

Both the cable and satellite firms can do an ala carte deal if they WANTED too.

I too don't want EWTN, Lifetime, QVC, ShopNBC, Oxygen, CourtTV, etc.

I realize there's expense involved for all the hardware costs for broadband and CATV access, but the cable companies have wonderful little monopoly here in WI.

Until that gets broken up and there is TRUE competition, then we are going to be stuck with the same old crap.

If I could "accidentally" cut down the tree across the street that's blocking my dish's reception, I'd cut the cable for TV and go with DISH.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think we should all be rooting for the NFLN because it gives us what we want for cheaper. Both sides have a case, but the NFL's interest is closer to mine, so I'm siding with them.


The NFL Network thinks you should get to watch the games for free, they should extract high fees from cable, and the cable companis should just make-up their losses some other way.

Guess that sounds appealing.

[Bretsky]

I think we should all be rooting for the NFLN because it gives us what we want for cheaper. Both sides have a case, but the NFL's interest is closer to mine, so I'm siding with them.


The NFL Network thinks you should get to watch the games for free, they should extract high fees from cable, and the cable companis should just make-up their losses some other way.

Guess that sounds appealing.


.70 cents per customer; to me that is a nice deal the NFL is offering those pathetic excuse for cablecrap companies

[Partial]

Why do you feel that way Bretsky when other channels get 5 to 10 cents for a superior product?!?

[Bretsky]

Why do you feel that way Bretsky when other channels get 5 to 10 cents for a superior product?!?


Can you give me some examples ? I don't watch 80% of the crap offered by cable. I'm curious as to what product you are thinking of

[Partial]

I'm not sure of the exact cable prices but my understanding is most channels like CNN or MTV or Comedy Central are very inexpensive (10-20 cents) where as ESPN and other greedy networks know they will have viewers so they charge the big bucks (I believe ESPN is like 3 bucks or so). I blame both parties for being greedy. If the NFL network was say 30 cents cheaper or so it'd be on basic cable.

[RashanGary]

$0.70 seems pretty cheap compared to $3.00


What bothers me is that the cable companies want me to pay $6.00 to get only one channel that I really want, NFLN.

[MJZiggy]

If ESPN is $3 and NFLN is .70. then maybe they should put ESPN on the sports tier instead... :idea:

[cpk1994]

$0.70 seems pretty cheap compared to $3.00


What bothers me is that the cable companies want me to pay $6.00 to get only one channel that I really want, NFLN.Its not the money that the cable compaines are balking at. Its where the channel is placed. THe cable companies want to make money off the channel as well. The NFL only wants to keep the money for itself even though they are already getting billions from the networks. This is the same thing regarding the BigTen Network. Its all about placement.

[RashanGary]

cpk, the Cable companies want NFL fans to pay for their higher level sports tier because they know we will. They want to make us pay six extra dollars for 10 channels when we only really want one channel for $1.00

The NFL, on the other hand, wants it to be "placed" on basic cable and with that placement comes a cheaper cost to US.



The NFL is looking out for itself, but in the process, it's also looking out for us. The Cable compaines are looking for a way to ding us out of as much money as possible. In my opinion, we should all be against cable because they are trying to rake us over the coals to get the one channel we all really want.

[cpk1994]

cpk, the Cable companies want NFL fans to pay for their higher level sports tier because they know we will. They want to make us pay six extra dollars for 10 channels when we only really want one channel for $1.00

The NFL, on the other hand, wants it to be "placed" on basic cable and with that placement comes a cheaper cost to US.



The NFL is looking out for itself, but in the process, it's also looking out for us. The Cable compaines are looking for a way to ding us out of as much money as possible. In my opinion, we should all be against cable because they are trying to rake us over the coals to get the one channel we all really want.BUt many people also DONT WANT NFLN and don't want to be charged for it.

[RashanGary]

BUt many people also DONT WANT NFLN and don't want to be charged for it.

I understand that, but many of us don't want VH1, Lifetime, BET, Oxygen and many others but we pay for them. If they want me to pay for NFLN, great but don't try to sucker me out of 5 times more money just because you know I'll pay it. That is bull shit and the NFL knows exacly what cable is trying to do. I'll bet there are a lot of old granny's that don't want ESPN for $3 every month but they are getting raked over the coals. Screw that, I pay for 50 channels I don't want every month. The least they can do is give me (and millions of other nFL fans) one of our favorite channels on basic cable.

[cpk1994]

BUt many people also DONT WANT NFLN and don't want to be charged for it.

I understand that, but many of us don't want VH1, Lifetime, BET, Oxygen and many others but we pay for them. If they want me to pay for NFLN, great but don't try to sucker me out of 5 times more money just because you know I'll pay it. That is bull shit and the NFL knows exacly what cable is trying to do.Looking at my cable ill, 5 times more money is an absolute myth. And you have no proof that cable companies will jack the price way up. That is NFL BS propaganda and scare tactics..I have everything bundled under one price and thy haven't once raised my bill more than a $1. Now DVR service is another story.

As I said before, both sides are to blame. Anyone who blames all this just on the cables operators is either ignorant or have their lips firmly chapped on Goodell's ass.

[RashanGary]

I think the NFL has aspirations of having NFLN in every home just like ESPN. If they can get that, they can stop putting prime time games on ESPN or ABC and just carry them all on NFLN (cutting out the middle man).

I want that to happen because then ESPN will lose their highest rated 4 hours of TV. On top of that, most NFL fans will probably stop watching an hour of boring sportscenter and 25 minutes of shit commercials just to get to the 2 minute highlight of their favorite football team for 20 weeks out of the year and then another month before the draft. ESPN has a monopoly on sports views and their $3.00/mo rate reflects that. As much as anything this is a punch in the nuts to ESPN if the NFLN gets broadcast in everyhome and I'll be cable SAVES money in the long run because ESPN will have less leverage next time they to to negotiate the highest priced channel on cable TV.

[Bretsky]

$0.70 seems pretty cheap compared to $3.00


What bothers me is that the cable companies want me to pay $6.00 to get only one channel that I really want, NFLN.

This seems to be a gray area; I've heard Cablecrap wants to charge between $10-$20 per month for the NFL Network

[Bretsky]

I'm not sure of the exact cable prices but my understanding is most channels like CNN or MTV or Comedy Central are very inexpensive (10-20 cents) where as ESPN and other greedy networks know they will have viewers so they charge the big bucks (I believe ESPN is like 3 bucks or so). I blame both parties for being greedy. If the NFL network was say 30 cents cheaper or so it'd be on basic cable.

Hey, I asked for superior channels; I want me .10 to .20 cents back !!

[Bretsky]

BUt many people also DONT WANT NFLN and don't want to be charged for it.

I understand that, but many of us don't want VH1, Lifetime, BET, Oxygen and many others but we pay for them. If they want me to pay for NFLN, great but don't try to sucker me out of 5 times more money just because you know I'll pay it. That is bull shit and the NFL knows exacly what cable is trying to do.Looking at my cable ill, 5 times more money is an absolute myth. And you have no proof that cable companies will jack the price way up. That is NFL BS propaganda and scare tactics..I have everything bundled under one price and thy haven't once raised my bill more than a $1. Now DVR service is another story.

As I said before, both sides are to blame. Anyone who blames all this just on the cables operators is either ignorant or have their lips firmly chapped on Goodell's ass.

Addition of the NFL Network on Expanded Cable would be around .70 per person; if Cable does it the way they want to the cost will be a lot more than 5X as much.

If I was the NFL network I'd have pro NFL Network commercials running all night tonight in exchange for the broadcasts.

I've had my bill raised plenty cpk; you must not have Charter.

[RashanGary]

[
As I said before, both sides are to blame. Anyone who blames all this just on the cables operators is either ignorant or have their lips firmly chapped on Goodell's ass.

I disagree. The NFL is probably my single favorite entertainment product and because I enjoy it so much, I want it to flourish and have the money to bring me more and better coverage. ESPN doesn't do that. They get moeny and spend it on Yankee coverage. No thanks. The less I watch that channel, the happier I am.

This is how cable works. You pay for this so you can get that. NFLN will probably be my most watched channel as soon as I get it and I believe having it on basic cable will allow the NFLN to make even more money, allowing them to bring better programming, allowing me to enjoy my favorite product even more.

Oh no, I'm all about supporting the NFL. What will cable do with the extra money? Nothing other than line their pockets. The NFL on the other hand will line their pockets while also giving us a better football coverage.

[MadtownPacker]

I blame all you cheapasses who expect the NFL, Charter or anyone who isnt yo momma to give a damn about you!

Fork over the $$$, I know you bigtimers can afford the few extra bucks a month.

Sheeze, you guys probably spend more than that $$ supersizing your combo everyday at lunch.

[cpk1994]

BUt many people also DONT WANT NFLN and don't want to be charged for it.

I understand that, but many of us don't want VH1, Lifetime, BET, Oxygen and many others but we pay for them. If they want me to pay for NFLN, great but don't try to sucker me out of 5 times more money just because you know I'll pay it. That is bull shit and the NFL knows exacly what cable is trying to do.Looking at my cable ill, 5 times more money is an absolute myth. And you have no proof that cable companies will jack the price way up. That is NFL BS propaganda and scare tactics..I have everything bundled under one price and thy haven't once raised my bill more than a $1. Now DVR service is another story.

As I said before, both sides are to blame. Anyone who blames all this just on the cables operators is either ignorant or have their lips firmly chapped on Goodell's ass.

Addition of the NFL Network on Expanded Cable would be around .70 per person; if Cable does it the way they want to the cost will be a lot more than 5X as much.

If I was the NFL network I'd have pro NFL Network commercials running all night tonight in exchange for the broadcasts.

I've had my bill raised plenty cpk; you must not have Charter.Acutally I do have Charter, and I have been examining my bills to see how it is broken down to get a semblence of how much extra the cable companies are actually "jacking up" my bill vs. alleged claims. I have had Charter since about 98-99 and never have seen a rate increase of more than $1 or $2 dollars in any given year. I also had NFLN on the sports tier back in about 2004(don't remember off hand). There was not a significant difference in what I paid with NFLN vs. what I pay without it since. The only signifacnt raise was for DVR service(which I added and then had the price increased once by $5).

[RashanGary]

The NFL is the most popular sport in our country. They deserve their own basic cable channel. If we have to pay for these other shitty channels, the least they can do is give me my favorite one.

All we can do as consumers is switch and hope everyone else follows suit. I can listen to my Brewers on the radio. The Bucks are run by a shit GM so I can do without them for a couple years (I havn't hardly watched this year anyway). I'm going to make the switch this spring for the draft. Consumers only have one real way to talk and that is by spending our all might dollar else where.

[cpk1994]

The NFL is the most popular sport in our country. They deserve their own basic cable channel. If we have to pay for these other shitty channels, the least they can do is give me my favorite one.

All we can do as consumers is switch and hope everyone else follows suit. I can listen to my Brewers on the radio. The Bucks are run by a shit GM so I can do without them for a couple years. I'm going to make the switch this spring for the draft.Unfortunately, the NFL has hoped for that for two years and it has failed miserably. The BigTen is finding that out the hardway as well. There will never be enough people switching to make the Cable companies change their minds becuase those who want it bad have already switched.

[RashanGary]

Unfortunately, the NFL has hoped for that for two years and it has failed miserably. The BigTen is finding that out the hardway as well. There will never be enough people switching to make the Cable companies change their minds becuase those who want it bad have already switched.

I've held out because I've hoped it would get fixed. After hearing how great the draft coverage is and the big games we missed this year, I'm changing this spring. I'll bet I'm not the only one.

And I'm not blaming the NFL at all because cable wants to charge me between six and ten more dollars to have the network anyway. No thanks, cable. Seems to me this thing is just getting started.

[MadtownPacker]

There will never be enough people switching to make the Cable companies change their minds becuase those who want it bad have already switched.As Harrell stated, he is making the switch. He always flip-flops on everything else but I think on this subject he is set. People waited and if it aint happening then they are gonna make the next move. Switching to DTV or Dish and getting what they want. They have deals they make it cost free and in most instances you get a nice promotional deal for switching.

The Packers vs cowboys match up of 1 loss teams in week 13 was pure gold to NFLN. It brought the fight against cable back in the spotlight. Now week 17 they have an undefeated season ending/happening and they get to show the world what they get if they have NFLN.

That's the best advertising they can get.

[cpk1994]

There will never be enough people switching to make the Cable companies change their minds becuase those who want it bad have already switched.As Harrell stated, he is making the switch. He always flip-flops on everything else but I think on this subject he is set. People waited and if it aint happening then they are gonna make the next move. Switching to DTV or Dish and getting what they want. They have deals they make it cost free and in most instances you get a nice promotional deal for switching.

The Packers vs cowboys match up of 1 loss teams in week 13 was pure gold to NFLN. It brought the fight against cable back in the spotlight. Now week 17 they have an undefeated season ending/happening and they get to show the world what they get if they have NFLN.

That's the best advertising they can get.But, at the same time the NFL lessened its bargaining power by backing down and showing this game over-the air nationwide and strenghtes cable operators stance becuase all it takes now is for Congress to threaten to take the NFL's tax exempt status away and the NFL folds like a cheap suit.

[Bretsky]

There will never be enough people switching to make the Cable companies change their minds becuase those who want it bad have already switched.As Harrell stated, he is making the switch. He always flip-flops on everything else but I think on this subject he is set. People waited and if it aint happening then they are gonna make the next move. Switching to DTV or Dish and getting what they want. They have deals they make it cost free and in most instances you get a nice promotional deal for switching.

The Packers vs cowboys match up of 1 loss teams in week 13 was pure gold to NFLN. It brought the fight against cable back in the spotlight. Now week 17 they have an undefeated season ending/happening and they get to show the world what they get if they have NFLN.

That's the best advertising they can get.But, at the same time the NFL lessened its bargaining power by backing down and showing this game over-the air nationwide and strenghtes cable operators stance becuase all it takes now is for Congress to threaten to take the NFL's tax exempt status away and the NFL folds like a cheap suit.

With a great broadcast the NFLN could use tonights measure as a nice promo letting football fans know what we miss.

I'm giving it til June of next year; at that point I'm going from CharterCrap. I'm hoping the legislators and other factors will force a deal to occur.

[MJZiggy]

Why would you stay with Charter until June? You hate that company. Why give them your business?

[Bretsky]

Why would you stay with Charter until June? You hate that company. Why give them your business?

NFL football training came time and I still think the Legislators may force a deal. I like their cable internet; that's the main reason I've stayed this long

[HarveyWallbangers]

With a great broadcast the NFLN could use tonights measure as a nice promo letting football fans know what we miss.

I'm giving it til June of next year; at that point I'm going from CharterCrap. I'm hoping the legislators and other factors will force a deal to occur.

Their game broadcasts are their worst programming. Collinsworth is solid, but Bryant Gumbel is awful.

[Jimx29]

With a great broadcast the NFLN could use tonights measure as a nice promo letting football fans know what we miss.

I'm giving it til June of next year; at that point I'm going from CharterCrap. I'm hoping the legislators and other factors will force a deal to occur.

Their game broadcasts are their worst programming. Collinsworth is solid, but Bryant Gumbel is awful.^^Werd^^

[MJZiggy]

Maybe they're planning another "sore throat" for him tonight...

[RashanGary]

I'm giving it til June of next year; at that point I'm going from CharterCrap. I'm hoping the legislators and other factors will force a deal to occur.

I'm gonna change sometime after March.

I don't know how often you download monster files, but I use SBC Yahoo DSL. It's $15 per month and it's more than enough for me. If you are the guy who downloads MONSTER files (and I mean monster because nothing about my DSL bothers me), then I think you'll be happy with DSL. I'm sure there are people here who can't do without $30 internet, but I'm a person who is very satisfied with the speed of DSL. It's just fast enough to download movie clips faster than they play, so there is never lag.

[Bretsky]

THIS SHOULD BE ONE PROMOTIONAL EVENT

[GBRulz]

There will never be enough people switching to make the Cable companies change their minds becuase those who want it bad have already switched.

Between Charter and Time Warner, they have lost almost a million customers in the first two quarters of this year. Apparently, that's not enough for them.

B, you remember that article I posted about that, right? I wish I could find it, it was a good read. It's unbelievable how many people have ditched the cable pigs for Dish or DirectTV.

WI has just passed a cable bill, much like the telecom act of 96. Basically, Time Warner and Charter will have to open up their networks to competitors. This is a good thing for all.

[Jimx29]

surprise surprise...the NFL running an ad for themselves :roll:

[Bretsky]

surprise surprise...the NFL running an ad for themselves :roll:


What a great day for the NFL Network

They are effectively promoting a good product and their detailed draft coverage

Chartercrap cannot be happy about this; brilliant move by the NFL

[RashanGary]

It certainly seems like the NFL came out ahead in this one. I don't think too many NFL fans want to miss games next year (even if they are not as big as this one was).

[Bretsky]

It certainly seems like the NFL came out ahead in this one. I don't think too many NFL fans want to miss games next year (even if they are not as big as this one was).


Absolutely; I'm sure I'm not the only one saying I WILL have that channel one way or the other by next year

Actually I wish I had it for the draft coverage too :!:

[RashanGary]

Even if the NFL could influence 7% to switch total. It sounds like they've already lost a meaningfull portion of their viewers. The NFL just needs to keep pushing. I know I was a person on the fence and this year was the straw that broke the camels back. I can only hope there are a lot more people like me who just want to have the NFLN and don't want to pay for 10 other channels that they don't want.

[RashanGary]

Absolutely; I'm sure I'm not the only one saying I WILL have that channel one way or the other by next year

Actually I wish I had it for the draft coverage too :!:

That's why I'm switching in March.

[MJZiggy]

I'll be curious to see how the cable companies respond to tonight's broadcast. It was quite the marketing adventure from Goodell's interview on.

[Bretsky]

I'll be curious to see how the cable companies respond to tonight's broadcast. It was quite the marketing adventure from Goodell's interview on.

Yes they did

I'll be calling CharterCrap again Monday

[Carolina_Packer]

I don't understand why the NFLN's strategy was not to get the product out there, even if the profits from it weren't as high as hoped, get the masses addicted and then when next agreement comes up, you've earned the right to charge more to the cable companies, and make them look like the bad guy if they were to drop the NFLN. Something tells me the NFLN can afford to lower what they'd be willing to accept from the cable companies to get the product out there.

[RashanGary]

Very good point, Carolina.

[Patler]

I have several problem's with the NFL and Big Ten situations:

The leagues are trying to dictate to the cable companies how to run their business when each is only a small part of the cable company product line.

This is a private negotiation, yet the leagues are trying to bring in conflict resolution procedures, such as mediation. That's fine if you are trying to resolve an existing contract dispute, but essentially this is simply a buyer and a seller negotiating a deal. It's a simple commercial negotiation.

All those meaningless channels you complain about cost virtually nothing for the cable companies to access. That's why they give them to you. The NFL network would be one of the most expensive broadcast source accesses for the cable companies to buy. The companies that are balking at the deal simply want the users of the expensive products to pay for it. Instead, the NFL wants the costs absorbed by all those who have no interest whatsoever in NFL football to pay for it. Yes, in some ways its similar to those other "meaningless" channels, but whereas those might cost a few pennies for each of us, the NFL network is 10x as much.

I am much more upset at the exorbitant price the NFL has put on their product than I am at the cable companies. If they would cut their fees in half, I bet Charter and the others would jump at the deal.

[RashanGary]

All those meaningless channels you complain about cost virtually nothing for the cable companies to access. That's why they give them to you. The NFL network would be one of the most expensive broadcast source accesses for the cable companies to buy. The companies that are balking at the deal simply want the users of the expensive products to pay for it. Instead, the NFL wants the costs absorbed by all those who have no interest whatsoever in NFL football to pay for it. Yes, in some ways its similar to those other "meaningless" channels, but whereas those might cost a few pennies for each of us, the NFL network is 10x as much.

This is just not true. The cable companies want to package the $0.70 NFL network with a bunch of junk none of us want and charge us $10.00 per person for their sports tier. They are the ones jacking the price up a multiple of ten. They don't simply "want us to pay for our channel" as you suggest. They want us to pay for a dozen channels just to get the one we want.


I am much more upset at the exorbitant price the NFL has put on their product than I am at the cable companies. If they would cut their fees in half, I bet Charter and the others would jump at the deal.

I agree with this. If dropping the price a little would help, they could probably do that. They should do it on a short term basis because I think they can take a big chunk out of ESPN's ratings and they'll have more bargaining power next time around.

[Patler]

How many of you remember the discussion from the NFL 10-15 years ago about eventually eliminating all free broadcasts of games? When it was mentioned, there was a huge uproar from fans, so they have quit referring to it. However, I believe that is still their goal, a strictly pay-per-view situation in which you will pay separately for each and every game you chose to watch. Owners mentioned the "unfairness" of people in their homes getting for free what the fans in the stands pay huge money for. That is how they have forced such huge contracts on the networks, the threat of pay-per-view.

Starting their own network was another step toward strict pay-per-view.

Personally, I hope the NFL Network is a complete failure.

[RashanGary]

As far as the price goes, it acctually seems calcuated and somewhat fair in my opinion.

Look at ESPN. They get $3.00 per costomer. I don't know what percentage of ESPN's ratings comes from the NFL, but I'd think 30% is a pretty good number. Interpolate ESPN's $3.00 rate to about 30% (the NFL's portion) and I think you have a pretty fair number with $0.70

I think you forget, Patler, that the NFL didn't set the sports market. They are entering an already established market. I'm sure they have some pretty smart people whos job is to place the NFLN in a reasonable bracket before they went to the negotiating table. Take a look at ESPN's rate and explain to me why you think 30% of that is such an unreasonable request?

[Patler]

This is just not true. The cable companies want to package the $0.70 NFL network with a bunch of junk none of us want and charge us $10.00 per person for their sports tier. They are the ones jacking the price up a multiple of ten. They don't simply "want us to pay for our channel" as you suggest. They want us to pay for a dozen channels just to get the one we want.


You missed the point, the $.70 itself is 10x as much as many of those other channels cost. If the cable companies choose to market it as a package "sports tier" that is their right, and you have the right not to buy it. Its simple supply and demand. If not enough buy it, the cable companies would have to revise their market strategy.

The same thing should be in play with the NFL/cable company negotiations, but the NFL is attempting to skirt the normal market influences on the price of their product.

[RashanGary]

You missed the point, the $.70 itself is 10x as much as many of those other channels cost. If the cable companies choose to market it as a package "sports tier" that is their right, and you have the right not to buy it. Its simple supply and demand. If not enough buy it, the cable companies would have to revise their market strategy.

The same thing should be in play with the NFL/cable company negotiations, but the NFL is attempting to skirt the normal market influences on the price of their product.

I think you missed the point. Big Cable has every right to bully around a new network they way they are and have done in the past, but if the network has a big fan base, they have every right to let the fans know what is happening and every right to ask their fans to switch. Cable isn't used to competition. This whole thing is very new, but it doesn't mean it's wrong just becuase the way TV is purchased is changing. Now we have options and any network that wants to estabilish itslelf can use that rather than being bully's around by what used to be a monopoly.

[Patler]

Take a look at ESPN's rate and explain to me why you think 30% of that is such an unreasonable request?

Very simple, wider appeal and much more programing on ESPN. There are programs on ESPN for any sports fan who has cable.

Explain to me why I should pay $.70 just for you to watch football? I might be willing to pay $.10, maybe, but not $.70.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The cable companies want to package the $0.70 NFL network with a bunch of junk none of us want and charge us $10.00 per person for their sports tier.

So what? They are packaging the product in the way that has the highest profit for them.

The only potential villian in this deal is the NFL Network, not because they too are trying to generate profits, but because they are leveraging their monopoly position, bullying other businesses. Major League Baseball and NFL exist as legal monopolies, but they aren't supposed to be throwing their weight around and swallowing-up ALL of the related business. The NFL Network is way over the line in dictating terms.

[RashanGary]

Take a look at ESPN's rate and explain to me why you think 30% of that is such an unreasonable request?

Very simple, wider appeal and much more programing on ESPN. There are programs on ESPN for any sports fan who has cable.

Explain to me why I should pay $.70 just for you to watch football? I might be willing to pay $.10, maybe, but not $.70.

You underestimate the popularity of the NFL, Patler. Like I said to the Thompson haters, you can make baseless claims all you want but when this thing plays out, the proof will be in the pudding. I'll be here. I havn't said much to the Thompson haters, but when people want to make baseless claims as if they are facts, all one can do is say "we'll see". So we will see Patler.

[Patler]

You missed the point, the $.70 itself is 10x as much as many of those other channels cost. If the cable companies choose to market it as a package "sports tier" that is their right, and you have the right not to buy it. Its simple supply and demand. If not enough buy it, the cable companies would have to revise their market strategy.

The same thing should be in play with the NFL/cable company negotiations, but the NFL is attempting to skirt the normal market influences on the price of their product.

I think you missed the point. Big Cable has every right to bully around a new network they way they are and have done in the past, but if the network has a big fan base, they have every right to let the fans know what is happening and every right to ask their fans to switch. Cable isn't used to competition. This whole thing is very new, but it doesn't mean it's wrong just becuase the way TV is purchased is changing. Now we have options and any network that wants to estabilish itslelf can use that rather than being bully's around by what used to be a monopoly.

I have no problem with that. My problem is with them trying to force mediation in a simple commercial transaction.

If you go to buy a car, and you and the dealer can't agree on a price; do you want a mediator to come in and determine how much you will have to pay for it and force the deal down your throat; or do you want to be able to walk away without buying the car?

As a store owner, would you want a mediator to determine what you have to sell and how much you will pay for it?

The NFL and the cable companies are big boys. I say let them fight it out.

[RashanGary]

So what? They are packaging the product in the way that has the highest profit for them.
.

Yeah, and the customer has a choice not to take it. The NFL is doing is the courtesty of letting us know how this whole thing is going down. I'll say to you the same thing I said to Patler. We'll see.

[Patler]

Take a look at ESPN's rate and explain to me why you think 30% of that is such an unreasonable request?

Very simple, wider appeal and much more programing on ESPN. There are programs on ESPN for any sports fan who has cable.

Explain to me why I should pay $.70 just for you to watch football? I might be willing to pay $.10, maybe, but not $.70.

You underestimate the popularity of the NFL, Patler. Like I said to the Thompson haters, you can make baseless claims all you want but when this thing plays out, the proof will be in the pudding. I'll be here. I havn't said much to the Thompson haters, but when people want to make baseless claims as if they are facts, all one can do is say "we'll see". So we will see Patler.

All right JH, what baseless claims have I made?

Why won't you explain to me why you think I should pay for you to watch the NFL?

If the NFL fans have the power and strength you think they have, this will all come out in the end. Personally, I find most sports fans to be like lemmings following their leaders to their eventual demise. Some of you will end up paying whatever the NFL wants you to pay.

[Patler]

You underestimate the popularity of the NFL, Patler.

I think you overestimate its popularity, because its fans are, well, fanatic. :D

There are many more people who could not careless about the NFL then there are who are fans. There are also many like me, who are fans, but certainly aren't about to pay for each game as the NFL would like. It's just not that important.

[RashanGary]

Patler, Cable has been conducting itself as a monopoly for quite some time. I see your point in not likeing the arbitration, but cable still has a lot of people bent over because they still have a form of monopoly on the market.

With that monopoly comes their ability to ring up these higher tiers and gouge a customer who really only wants one channel becuase it's their only choice. Cable knows they have this power, so they toss it around in these negotiations.



How do you stop a monopoly? There is only one way.

[Patler]

The only potential villian in this deal is the NFL Network, not because they too are trying to generate profits, but because they are leveraging their monopoly position, bullying other businesses. Major League Baseball and NFL exist as legal monopolies, but they aren't supposed to be throwing their weight around and swallowing-up ALL of the related business. The NFL Network is way over the line in dictating terms.

Exactly. Which is why the NFL made a big step backward when a Congressman mentioned "NFL", "antitrust" and "exemption" in the same sentence.

[RashanGary]

All right JH, what baseless claims have I made?

Why won't you explain to me why you think I should pay for you to watch the NFL?

If the NFL fans have the power and strength you think they have, this will all come out in the end. Personally, I find most sports fans to be like lemmings following their leaders to their eventual demise. Some of you will end up paying whatever the NFL wants you to pay.

This comment is seeping with arrogance, Patler. Your horse isn't nearly as high as you think it is.

[Patler]

Patler, Cable has been conducting itself as a monopoly for quite some time. I see your point in not likeing the arbitration, but cable still has a lot of people bent over because they still have a form of monopoly on the market.

With that monopoly comes their ability to ring up these higher tiers and gouge a customer who really only wants one channel becuase it's their only choice. Cable knows they have this power, so they toss it around in these negotiations.

How do you stop a monopoly? There is only one way.

Only in some states. They are fast losing their exclusivities, including perhaps in Wisconsin.

Even so, they have competitors. Look at all the subscribers they have lost over this. That is not a monopolistic situation, because there are alternatives, even if not for all.

What competitor is there for the NFL?

Perhaps Charter should start its own football league?

[RashanGary]

Exactly. Which is why the NFL made a big step backward when a Congressman mentioned "NFL", "antitrust" and "exemption" in the same sentence.

This won't be the first tiem a democrat congressman tried to meddle in buisness, and it won't be the last. I would bet some big cable lobbyist had some say, but the congressman isn't going to tell you that and neither will the spokesperson for Big Cable.

[Patler]

All right JH, what baseless claims have I made?

Why won't you explain to me why you think I should pay for you to watch the NFL?

If the NFL fans have the power and strength you think they have, this will all come out in the end. Personally, I find most sports fans to be like lemmings following their leaders to their eventual demise. Some of you will end up paying whatever the NFL wants you to pay.

This comment is seeping with arrogance, Patler. Your horse isn't nearly as high as you think it is.

Arrogance? What horse? Look at what people are willing to pay for tickets. I put sports fans in the same category as music fans who pay huge concert ticket prices.

What I think is ridiculous is people complaining about their grocery bills, a necessity of life, while they waste hundreds of dollars or more each month on new fancy cars much beyond what they need, entertainment of all sorts, booze, cell phones, text messaging, etc. They complain about $3.00 milk, but pay $100 bucks for two hours entertainment.

[RashanGary]

The NFL is a part of the sports market. People can choose football, basketball, baseball, soccer, rugby or none of them.

If Cable wants to go start a football league, good luck to them. They have every right to do that. The NFL has a pretty great league.

It's one thing to have a great product. It's quite another thing to have recieved tax dollars/tax breaks to build an infrastructure and now using that same infrustracture to strong arm the poeple and companies that need it.

[RashanGary]

Patler, I greatly look forward to our state opening up the cable infrastructure to all companies. As soon as that happens, this whole thing will be dead because TimeWarnercrap and Chartercrap will not have a pot to pee in. Their history of calm negotiations that amount to our way or the highway will be over.

[esoxx]

I don't think too many NFL fans want to miss games next year (even if they are not as big as this one was).

I didn't want to miss games this year or last year either. Each season holds the same significance to me. However, watching an NFL game tonight doesn't make me any more or less moved to action. Until these two squabbling entities get it worked out, they're not getting an extra dime from me and I'm trying not to care.

I feel the same way with the Big Ten Network. If you can't or won't show me the games then I'm not going to go out of my way to go watch at a bar or whatever. I just don't care as much about the Badgers FB & BB teams as I used to since they're not going to televise it. When they get this worked out, I get back in the flow.

[Patler]

The NFL is a part of the sports market. People can choose football, basketball, baseball, soccer, rugby or none of them.

If Cable wants to go start a football league, good luck to them. They have every right to do that. The NFL has a pretty great league.

It's one thing to have a great product. It's quite another thing to have recieved tax dollars/tax breaks to build an infrastructure and now using that same infrustracture to strong arm the poeple and companies that need it.

I'm not sure who you are referring to in your last paragraph?

I have to assume it is the NFL, who's teams have received huge tax dollar "donations" for stadiums while many owners become obscenely rich on paper from the value of their franchise. The cable company I worked for 30 years ago certainly did not receive any tax dollars for infrastructure.

[Partial]

BUt many people also DONT WANT NFLN and don't want to be charged for it.

I understand that, but many of us don't want VH1, Lifetime, BET, Oxygen and many others but we pay for them. If they want me to pay for NFLN, great but don't try to sucker me out of 5 times more money just because you know I'll pay it. That is bull shit and the NFL knows exacly what cable is trying to do. I'll bet there are a lot of old granny's that don't want ESPN for $3 every month but they are getting raked over the coals. Screw that, I pay for 50 channels I don't want every month. The least they can do is give me (and millions of other nFL fans) one of our favorite channels on basic cable.

But those aren't 70 cents... Those channels are like 5 to 10 cents dude.

[Partial]

Why would you stay with Charter until June? You hate that company. Why give them your business?

NFL football training came time and I still think the Legislators may force a deal. I like their cable internet; that's the main reason I've stayed this long

What you should ultimately do is go with SBC and bundle all your services. Digital phone, DSL, Satellite, and Cell phone. You get a massive savings if you do this, but I don't like the idea of paying one company for all those services. Kind of a scary thought.

[esoxx]

The only potential villian in this deal is the NFL Network, not because they too are trying to generate profits, but because they are leveraging their monopoly position, bullying other businesses. Major League Baseball and NFL exist as legal monopolies, but they aren't supposed to be throwing their weight around and swallowing-up ALL of the related business. The NFL Network is way over the line in dictating terms.

Exactly. Which is why the NFL made a big step backward when a Congressman mentioned "NFL", "antitrust" and "exemption" in the same sentence.

That's the real reason the NFL decided to air this game. They were catching a lot of heat from congress. I don't agree w/ government intervention in such matters, but that's the reason they decided to put the game on network TV. Of course the NFL will spin it as a "goodwill gesture" for the fans.

[Patler]

I don't think too many NFL fans want to miss games next year (even if they are not as big as this one was).

I didn't want to miss games this year or last year either. Each season holds the same significance to me. However, watching an NFL game tonight doesn't make me any more or less moved to action. Until these two squabbling entities get it worked out, they're not getting an extra dime from me and I'm trying not to care.

I feel the same way with the Big Ten Network. If you can't or won't show me the games then I'm not going to go out of my way to go watch at a bar or whatever. I just don't care as much about the Badgers FB & BB teams as I used to since they're not going to televise it. When they get this worked out, I get back in the flow.

I'm the same way. Of course I grew up with only the radio for Packer games anyway. We had no TV station available to us that carried the Packers. I still prefer to listen to any and all sports on a radio while I busy my self with other tasks.

[Patler]

The only potential villian in this deal is the NFL Network, not because they too are trying to generate profits, but because they are leveraging their monopoly position, bullying other businesses. Major League Baseball and NFL exist as legal monopolies, but they aren't supposed to be throwing their weight around and swallowing-up ALL of the related business. The NFL Network is way over the line in dictating terms.

Exactly. Which is why the NFL made a big step backward when a Congressman mentioned "NFL", "antitrust" and "exemption" in the same sentence.

That's the real reason the NFL decided to air this game. They were catching a lot of heat from congress. I don't agree w/ government intervention in such matters, but that's the reason they decided to put the game on network TV. Of course the NFL will spin it as a "goodwill gesture" for the fans.

Unfortunately, the government is permanently intervened in sport leagues that are allowed to operate as quasi-monopolies.

[RashanGary]

Patler, the thing that bothers me is Cable using their infrastructure to strong arm me and every other NFL fan. I may be wrong about how it was originally built, but right now it's built and largely controlled by a couple entities. They are getting together in a monopolistic way to gouge us NFL fans.

I'm a big supporter of small governement, but one thing I do support is regulating monopolies. Without some government involvement in buisness, I think everything becomes owned by a few. I think cables control of the TV market is doing more harm than good. Based on other sports programming, the NFL's asking price is on par. I want the NFLN on basic cable and I think a lot of people feel the same way. We'll see how this whole thing goes, but I think NFL fans are a pretty strong group. I'm rooting for the NFL. I think that's clear.

[RashanGary]

I'm off to bed. I see your points Patler. I guess at the end fo the day I want NFLN on basic cable because I want to see it grow and the coverage to get better and better. I also feel burned by ESPN because I'm stuck watching their crap to get the few little morsels of info that I really wanted. I think the NFLN will allow me to almost stop watching ESPN all together. I just don't care about the yankees or Redsox.

Really, I can't get enough of the NFL and I believe them having their own basic cable network would allow them to grow in a way that benefits me. I'm a consumer. All I can do is switch and hope many others follow suit. I do think the NFL has a pretty powerfull fan base and with the new alternatives, I think they will win. I'm going to do my part to help the cause.

[Patler]

I'm off to bed. I see your points Patler. I guess at the end fo the day I want NFLN on basic cable because I want to see it grow and the coverage to get better and better. I also feel burned by ESPN because I'm stuck watching their crap to get the few little morsels of info that I really wanted. I think the NFLN will allow me to almost stop watching ESPN all together. I just don't care about the yankees or Redsox.

Really, I can't get enough of the NFL and I believe them having their own basic cable network would allow them to grow in a way that benefits me. I'm a consumer. All I can do is switch and hope many others follow suit. I do think the NFL has a pretty powerfull fan base and with the new alternatives, I think they will win. I'm going to do my part to help the cause.

I guess I would say, be careful what you wish for. The stronger NFLN gets, the closer they come to a strictly pay-per-view provider, which I believe is their long term goal.

[Patler]

Patler, the thing that bothers me is Cable using their infrastructure to strong arm me and every other NFL fan. I may be wrong about how it was originally built, but right now it's built and largely controlled by a couple entities. They are getting together in a monopolistic way to gouge us NFL fans.

I'm a big supporter of small governement, but one thing I do support is regulating monopolies. Without some government involvement in buisness, I think everything becomes owned by a few. I think cables control of the TV market is doing more harm than good. Based on other sports programming, the NFL's asking price is on par. I want the NFLN on basic cable and I think a lot of people feel the same way. We'll see how this whole thing goes, but I think NFL fans are a pretty strong group. I'm rooting for the NFL. I think that's clear.

Why don't you feel the same about the NFL tactics, their antitrust exemption, and the few owners allowed in that industry?

I don't know where you live, but I suspect your tax dollars have built a stadium somewhere; and now the NFL is thanking you by gradually making you pay for more and more of what had been free, or at least had been available from other sources that you already paid for. I don't see the cable companies as using any more strong arm tactics than the NFL is using in this situation.

[RashanGary]

I guess I would say, be careful what you wish for. The stronger NFLN gets, the closer they come to a strictly pay-per-view provider, which I believe is their long term goal.

I think their goal is to get in every home in America and then stop broadcasting Sunday and Monday night football on ESPN or NBC but airing it on their own network that is in everyone house. Those games make networks a lot of money and I think the NFL is sick of sharing. It would mesh pretty well with the stubborn stand to get on basic cable.

[Patler]

I guess I would say, be careful what you wish for. The stronger NFLN gets, the closer they come to a strictly pay-per-view provider, which I believe is their long term goal.

I think their goal is to get in every home in America and then stop broadcasting Sunday and Monday night football on ESPN or NBC but airing it on their own network that is in everyone house. Those games make networks a lot of money and I think the NFL is sick of sharing.

The money paid by the networks is huge, with the recent contracts paying the NFL enough to raise the salary cap tremendously in two seasons. Do the networks make money, too? Of course, they have to. That's business. But an interesting thing has happened in the recent negotiations. Several broadcast entities backed out of negotiations on some of the packages, saying the money demanded by the NFL was too much for what they would make from advertisers. They felt their return would be too little for the investment in money, capital and people. It was the first indication that perhaps a ceiling was being approached. Even some advertisers have backed away from the Super Bowl packages in recent years.

It is an interesting situation. The NFL has the product, and seems to be headed in the direction of wanting total control in distributing it all along the chain to the final consumer, the fans. It is similar in some ways to other aspects of the entertainment industry, with the inevitable result being restricted free access. If they can get every stay-at-home fan household to pay a few hundred dollars per year on average, think what that will mean for them financially.

I will not be surprised if there are no free TV broadcasts of any games within 10-15 years. I firmly believe that is the NFL's goal. You will have to subscribe to watch at home.

Radio could be next, now that "subscription" radio broadcasts are a reality.

[GBRulz]

I guess I would say, be careful what you wish for. The stronger NFLN gets, the closer they come to a strictly pay-per-view provider, which I believe is their long term goal.

If the NFL went to PPV, they would lose millions in advertising dollars. The amount of money they might make in charging people for games will never amount to the amount lost from advertisers pulling out. What advertiser is going to pay $$$$ to advertise when few people will actually see their ad?

On the other hand, the NFL wants the NFLN on the basic tiers because more people will see it. Hence, more advertisers will pay for ads if more people are seeing their product. If their channel is on a tier where people have to pay extra for, that eliminates millions of people seeing ads. Yet, the NFL CLAIMS they don't want cable charging extra for it because they don't want to see the fan get stuck with the extra cost. No way, it's all about the almightly advertising dollar.

There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. Who I truly feel for are those that have cable because it's their only choice. (i.e. line of sight is blocked, live in a condo/neighborhood where covenants prohibit satellite dishes, etc).

cable is bitching about .70 per customer. Well, at the rate of their decreasing subscriber base...it will become easily affordable for them pretty soon :wink:

[RashanGary]

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/articles/1114nflnetwork-congress-ON.html



Pash responded that the NFL Network has indeed increased its fees, but he cited the popularity of the league's product as justification. He said other NFL Network carriers - including DirecTV, EchoStar, Comcast and Cox - have not passed along the price increase to their customers. However, Comcast wants to start offering the network as part of a premium sports-tier package, which has sparked a legal challenge from the NFL.

Pash also noted the NFL is the only major pro sports league that broadcasts all of its games on free, over-the-air television. The NFL Network games will be aired by local stations in the participating teams' markets, using the same arrangement that exists with ESPN telecasts on Monday nights.

"There's been a mass migration away from broadcast television with one exception - the NFL - and we still have every game on broadcast television," Pash said.

Pash said the NFL Network's offerings do not run afoul of antitrust laws because they are "pro-competitive" and expand choices for consumers. As for Specter's concern about "what the NFL has in mind" for the future, Pash said it will be several years before there can be another significant change in how games are broadcast.

"For the next six years we've got contracts with the broadcast networks," Pash said. "We've got a contract with ESPN that goes out eight, so it's not like we're going to do this, this week, and next week we're going to do three times as much. This is where we are for the foreseeable future. We'll see if it works or not. We'll see if there's consumer acceptance. We'll see if there's consumer response. If these games don't get wide distribution, if they don't get good ratings, ratings commensurate with what our other games get, if they don't get strong advertiser support, we'll have to look at an alternative."
:


Patler, I think I may have errored in the way I read this the first time. What do you think they are saying here. It's obviously encrypted in sly fluff talk.

[Patler]

I guess I would say, be careful what you wish for. The stronger NFLN gets, the closer they come to a strictly pay-per-view provider, which I believe is their long term goal.

If the NFL went to PPV, they would lose millions in advertising dollars. The amount of money they might make in charging people for games will never amount to the amount lost from advertisers pulling out. What advertiser is going to pay $$$$ to advertise when few people will actually see their ad?

On the other hand, the NFL wants the NFLN on the basic tiers because more people will see it. Hence, more advertisers will pay for ads if more people are seeing their product. If their channel is on a tier where people have to pay extra for, that eliminates millions of people seeing ads. Yet, the NFL CLAIMS they don't want cable charging extra for it because they don't want to see the fan get stuck with the extra cost. No way, it's all about the almightly advertising dollar.


Short term, I agree with you. However, based on what the NFL and a few owners have said and implied in the past, I think there is a much, much longer range plan in the works.

A huge fan base has become hooked on free TV broadcasts. Gradually convert that fan base to having to "pay", with maybe giving them more games or more options and a whole bunch of filler programming initially. Move more and more formerly free games away from free television until the fans accept paying for everything.

As for advertisers, some may be willing to pay as much or more for a very focused group of viewers. Rather than advertise to the masses, use ads tailored to a specific group. Besides, the NFL might be willing to lower advertising rates because they, the NFL, will get the money; not the networks.

Right now the success of the NFL is shared on several levels. It seems to me that the NFL is trying to eliminate some of those levels so more of the money is kept by the teams. The more control they have, the more expensive it might become for average fans.

There is nothing inherently wrong or morally corrupt with the NFL if that is their goal. I simply believe it is not good for me in the long run.

[Patler]

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/articles/1114nflnetwork-congress-ON.html



Pash responded that the NFL Network has indeed increased its fees, but he cited the popularity of the league's product as justification. He said other NFL Network carriers - including DirecTV, EchoStar, Comcast and Cox - have not passed along the price increase to their customers. However, Comcast wants to start offering the network as part of a premium sports-tier package, which has sparked a legal challenge from the NFL.

Pash also noted the NFL is the only major pro sports league that broadcasts all of its games on free, over-the-air television. The NFL Network games will be aired by local stations in the participating teams' markets, using the same arrangement that exists with ESPN telecasts on Monday nights.

"There's been a mass migration away from broadcast television with one exception - the NFL - and we still have every game on broadcast television," Pash said.

Pash said the NFL Network's offerings do not run afoul of antitrust laws because they are "pro-competitive" and expand choices for consumers. As for Specter's concern about "what the NFL has in mind" for the future, Pash said it will be several years before there can be another significant change in how games are broadcast.

"For the next six years we've got contracts with the broadcast networks," Pash said. "We've got a contract with ESPN that goes out eight, so it's not like we're going to do this, this week, and next week we're going to do three times as much. This is where we are for the foreseeable future. We'll see if it works or not. We'll see if there's consumer acceptance. We'll see if there's consumer response. If these games don't get wide distribution, if they don't get good ratings, ratings commensurate with what our other games get, if they don't get strong advertiser support, we'll have to look at an alternative."
:


Patler, I think I may have errored in the way I read this the first time. What do you think they are saying here. It's obviously encrypted in sly fluff talk.

I think the statement above supports what I have been arguing, and I have highlighted a fwe I think are telling. There is a long range plan to move away from free telecasts of games. The negotiations in 6 years could be interesting. Maybe the NFL will offer only 14 games for each team as free broadcasts; or 12; or 10. Whatever they think works. There will be a transition to NFLN.

[RashanGary]

There is nothing inherently wrong or morally corrupt with the NFL if that is their goal. I simply believe it is not good for me in the long run.

As a consumer, I think you have an obligation to yourself to try to better your situation by timing your purchases, being thorough and in some cases supporting a cause.

There is some extra depth to this, but I"m not so sure the NFL will be able to take it to the point where they start takign away what we already have. I think they need that much free exposure to keep people hooked. I'm hooked enough where the crack dealer could probably take a little bit of my dignity but I don't know if everyone is this far into the habbit. They do have to be carefull. I think it would have a long term negative effect by making their product unavailable to new fans and sustaining/growing their product.

[Patler]

[quote=Patler]

There is some extra depth to this, but I"m not so sure the NFL will be able to take it to the point where they start takign away what we already have. I think they need that much free exposure to keep people hooked.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems to me they already have taken away games that were free in the past! :(

[MJZiggy]

No, you're not mistaken...Do you think they shifted the scheduling to include Thursday night games and Saturday night games so that people wouldn't notice the shift? Or so that they didn't have an alternative?

[Patler]

No, you're not mistaken...Do you think they shifted the scheduling to include Thursday night games and Saturday night games so that people wouldn't notice the shift? Or so that they didn't have an alternative?

Yes and Yes!

We are used to Sunday afternoon games and Monday night games, There have been Sunday night and Saturday games in the past, as well as a few Thursdays, but Sunday afternoon and Monday nights are the ones engrained in us.

It doesn't shock us as much that we do not get a game free that is at a time we don't normally expect to watch football. In some ways it makes us more willing to pay for it because it is something we didn't used to have. It's almost like an added benefit, although in reality it takes away a free game we had, but at a different time, in the past.