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

[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

[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/card...ngress-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.