Time Warner Cable at odds with NFL Network

[RLJSlick]

Does that also mean we won't be able to see the games if we have TWC here in Wisconsin?

http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/other/10/23/1023cable.html

"It has been frustrating," said Pete Abel, spokesman for Suddenlink. "The NFL, the richest sports league in America, is taking eight games out of its schedule and trying to hold them for ransom. Our question is where does it stop?"

[UncleMeat]

Regardless of what concessions were made in the process... Dish, DirectTV, UVerse, Cox and many others have carried the NFL Network from the start.  Time Warner insists that you have to pay for additional packages with all of those providers, but I haven't seen a case yet where that is true (ie - a $5-8/month "sports package").  

As far as I'm concerned, Time Warner is the one holding these games ransom.  It doesn't matter the circumstance, millions of fans are going to see it the same way.  It's simple logic, many other providers carry NFL Network, TWC doesn't.  Everything beyond that is unimportant to the average person and that is bad for TWC's image.

EDIT - Due to local market rules, you'll always get Packer games on one of the networks.  You'll miss non-Packer Thursday night games as the season goes on (same as last year) as well as the prime time Thanksgiving game (same as last year as well).

[vegasvic]

Considering how far behind TWC is with HD you would think they would try to appease at least some of their customers by offering BTN and NFLN.  Not only do their competitors have those, they have it in HD.

[RLJSlick]

Yeah you would think, but again, they are, by far. in more homes then not, so I guess they don't think it's that important.

[LoadStar]

Considering how far behind TWC is with HD you would think they would try to appease at least some of their customers by offering BTN and NFLN.  Not only do their competitors have those, they have it in HD.

As long as BTN and NFLN are insistent upon cable providers including their channel in the basic package, and then charging a bizarrely out of whack price per customer for it, I'm glad that TWC and other cable providers don't offer these channels. They belong exactly where TWC wants to put them, the sports package.

[vegasvic]

Yeah I know the excuse TWC makes is that they will "have to" pass along the charge to their customers.

What about shopping networks?  TWC actually gets paid to carry them. Do they pass along the extra revenue to their customers whenever they add a new one?

[Cheesehead Dave]

As long as BTN and NFLN are insistent upon cable providers including their channel in the basic package, and then charging a bizarrely out of whack price per customer for it, I'm glad that TWC and other cable providers don't offer these channels. They belong exactly where TWC wants to put them, the sports package.

Yeah, but the corollary to that is "Why should I have to pay for the Lifetime for Women Movie Network or Telemundo, or BET, or Oxygen when I'm not interested in those?" I bet the amount I'm paying for channels that I have a negative level of interest in far exceeds what BTN or NFLN costs.

[brewguru]

As long as BTN and NFLN are insistent upon cable providers including their channel in the basic package, and then charging a bizarrely out of whack price per customer for it, I'm glad that TWC and other cable providers don't offer these channels. They belong exactly where TWC wants to put them, the sports package.

It's interesting that Direct TV hasn't passed along the cost to their customers. TWC would make up the cost in advertising revenue. It's interesting that TWC will take a stand against the NFLN and BTN, but add more shopping channels and not add more HD channels.

TWC has never been honest in their dealings with consumers. When cable first came to Milwaukee in the mid-80s and TWC won the rights, I remember how they promised 150 channels. 20-some years later, they still don't have that.

[Mikey]

As long as BTN and NFLN are insistent upon cable providers including their channel in the basic package, and then charging a bizarrely out of whack price per customer for it, I'm glad that TWC and other cable providers don't offer these channels. They belong exactly where TWC wants to put them, the sports package.

Ad revenue not a possiblity for TWC to make up the "cost"?

What about the alternate companies who offer the channel, did they pass the "cost" along to the consumer?

At this point in time, I distrust anything coming from the "mouth" of TW.

I wish they weren't my only option, but since I rent I have no choice but to use them.

[tencom]

Ad revenue not a possiblity for TWC to make up the "cost"?

What about the alternate companies who offer the channel, did they pass the "cost" along to the consumer?

At this point in time, I distrust anything coming from the "mouth" of TW.

I wish they weren't my only option, but since I rent I have no choice but to use them.

Maybe the NFL channel and the BTN could get enough ad revenue, so they would not to have to charge anybody anything except the advertisers. But they know the average ratings would not be high enough to cover there costs And may I again mention that the shopping channels, are offered at no cost to the providers and no other program category charges as much as the sport channels How many sport channels to you want and need? I don't trust the NFL either. 3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IS MORE THEN ENOUGH!

[vegasvic]

Come on now, even diehard TWC fans have to admit it's very humorous for TWC to be pretending their standoff with BTN and NFLN is because they are concerned about their customers.  TWC has NEVER, EVER been concerned about their customers.  Look what they charge, the ridiculously low amount of HD channels they offer and their poor customer "service".  

Yes, it's very funny. Unfortunately the joke is on their customers.

By the way, if you think $3 billion is more than enough revenue for the NFL, TWC's 2006 revenue:  over $11 billion.  But they'll still pass the cost of these new channels on to YOU.

[tencom]

If you think a 8.5% average profit  margin for  cable companies  according to the FCC is a huge profit unlike the television stations that in many cases exceedes 60% profit margin and expect cable companies to absorb the cost of adding two more channels at an additional cost of $1.80 a month. One thing about this Website Posters don't do there homework. They don't study the Issues before commenting on them, and only understand things, from there own perspective and not able to get the complete Picture. I at least try to  get a little background before commenting,  and wish other posters do the same. All the NFL cares about is themselves. Maybe TWC is trying to save us some money! Programming costs is a major reason why cable rates have risen so much in the last few years.

[UncleMeat]

If you think a 8.5% average profit

Unless I'm missing something... TWC's most recent filings show revenues of $14.7billion and gross profits of $6.41billion.  So, all cable providers combined may average an 8.5% profit, but TWC sure isn't average.

[vegasvic]

Profits of $6.4 billion and yet they claim (and some actually believe) that they are worried about saving their customers money. :eek:

Yeah all the NFL cares about is themselves but TWC is concerned about their customers.  Funny stuff.:stpat

[tencom]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2181414.ece


 According to these figures here second quarter 2007 TWC profits were only less then 10 Percent of income. With revenue of about 4 Billion dollars, and net income of 272 million that works out to about 6.8% profit margin. A far cry from your figures.


Quote
"Time Warner Cable, which also trades as a separate stock since a partial spin-off this year, saw revenue jump 59 per cent to $4 billion helped largely by subscribers acquired in deals with Adelphia Communications and Comcast.
Operating income in cable rose 31 per cent to $711 million Net income dropped 8 per cent to $272 million but still beat analyst forecasts. "