Still no NFL Network on TWC?

[Chinatown]

But neither Direct or Dish charges anything extra for this channel.

[Jack 1000]

But neither Direct or Dish charges anything extra for this channel.

Well,

At least they don't tell you that they do.  Most stations have to be negotiated to carried by the cable or Dish system.  (Unless they are part of the "Cable Must-Carry transmission agreement mandated by the FCC.)  Nothing is "free" unless you go back to a TV with an aerial antenna.  I don't think these sports channels are just plopping channels on Dish out of the goodness of their hearts.  Somehow, someway, the subscriber is still being charged.  They will just find some way to incorporate it on to some part of the service agreement without telling subs about it,  Sports channels have very expensive and licensing transmission agreements, so perhaps when NFL Network was brand new, the Dish companies were able to get a better deal to get the channel.  Corporate greed, inflation, and the horrible economy, plus overhead costs, and inflated player salaries may have said to NFL Network, "We are going to demand more money from the cable operators" to cover the increased costs of football player and game transmission costs."

The problem is, TWC probably wanted to pay the same or approximately the same for the cost of NFL Network on Dish Systems and NFL Network said "No."  Both sides pit one against the other:  TWC saying that the cost being demanded by NFL Network is too high for the approximate 8-10 major live games that fans would care about."  NFL Network says that "TWC doesn't know how to negotiate."

In the end, there will most likely be a cost compromise for NFL Network. (Just like the Big Ten Network.)  NFL Network, for example might want $1.75 per TWC sub to carry the channel.  If enough fans demand the station, they might bring the price down to $1.25 per sub and than you will see that network on either standard service or the optional Digital Sports Package.  The parties are still negotiating on price  I heard that Big Ten Network's asking price was $1.10 and TWC negotiated it down to 70 Cents.  I don't know the on-gong price for what NFL Network wants for channel transmission on TWC, but I am pretty sure that it's higher than $1.10 per sub.

Than it becomes an issue of how much more would subs be willing to pay for this channel?  If NFL Network won't accept the grandfathered claused rate negotiations for TWC and other systems to carry the channel, all subs can do is wait for a far price to be agreed by both parties so that the channel can be carried.

Jack

[Chinatown]

What I am saying, is that when the NFL network was added to Dish, there was no additional cost. I have A200 programming. That is an sd package that runs $44.99. Certainly that is not an outrageous price.  It's also included in their Hd gold. That only runs $39,99.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/packages/detail.aspx?pack=AT200

http://www.dishnetwork.com/turbohd/programming/default.aspx

 I would assume that TWC has a programming package that is similar.

If the competition can include it, why not them.

[UncleMeat]

Maybe I'm in the minority... but I would pay for the NFL Network.  I just wouldn't pay for it the way TWC would want me to.

I would pay for it a la carte.  If the NFL Network wants to charge $0.70 per subscriber, mark it up and charge me $1.00.  Just keep it that way.  I don't want a sports package.  I don't watch soccer games, I don't care about FoxSports in other markets.  I play golf, but I don't want the golf channel.  I know this is unrealistic, but that is how I feel.

As for the worthiness of the channel, it's obviously debatable.  As a hardcore NFL fan, I think the channel is fantastic (I had it with UVerse, but we moved and the service is not available here, so I no longer have it).  I must qualify that statement by saying I pay $12.95/month for Sirius and 95% of my listening time is their NFL channel.  

Here's how I look at it.  There are 496 regular season NFL games played each year (32 teams, 16 games).  I reasonably have an opportunity to see about 70 of those games (2 Sunday day games, 1 Sunday night, 1 Monday night, 2 Thanksgiving).  I know there is some variance, and double-headers, but let's go with 70.  That's about 14% of the total games out there.  To make matters worse, I really don't want to see a majority of the Sunday games (IE - I don't care about the Bears-Rams and other regional "action"; I am a Patriots fan, but their games have been replaced with Jets/Favre coverage).  So every week, there is bound to be 1-2 games played that I really want to see, but won't be able to due to regional coverage.

How does the NFL Network help me?  Well, 8 extra regular season games doesn't sound like much, but it helps given the small percentage of total games available to cable subscribers.  The biggest help is the full replays and condensed replays through the week.  You can see entire games that you missed.  Or, at minimum, you can see the fantastic condensed coverage that skips the punts, 2nd and 10 incomplete passes, injury replays, etc.  You don't get the full experience, but a majority of the important parts of the game are there.  

In addition, the Thursday games have far and away the best TV coverage out there.  Bob Pappa has a good play-by-play voice and he knows the game and knows the important information to give (IE - down and distance).  Chris Collinsworth is fantastic (most of the people who hate him don't understand football on a detailed level).  And, they have done at least one game this year without a sideline reporter!  Their analysis is far more in depth than the idiot crews Fox/CBS/NBC/ESPN offer up (each week, it's presenting the game for people who have never watched a game before).  

The extra stuff you get is nice... I like the classic games and Super Bowl replays.  IE - seeing the Pats-Packers Super Bowl was great, as there's really no other way you can watch that game unless you had a crummy VHS copy from 10 years ago.  

I will agree with anyone who said the channel is not worth it to a majority of TV audiences.  It's a niche channel, but so is 98% of what's on cable TV.  Most of the content is even a niche item for NFL fans, as a majority of fans only watch the sport for fantasy, gambling or to see their home team play.  I get that.  I think the NFL Network and Time Warner need to get that too.  The NFL is way overvaluing their product.  If they had exclusive rights to games every week of the season (which I know they want to happen), they would have a lot more bargaining power.  However, even with the most popular sport in the US, they still don't have enough power to get any demand they want.  As for Time Warner, I never understood their position on this one.  Yes, it's a high price for a channel.   However, what is so difficult about making the channel part of the standard tier and just raising everyone's prices by $0.60?  They have passed on every other additional expense to the customer without question, so why make a stand on this one?  Nobody is going to leave them over $0.60, as their annual price hikes (the ones that do NOT include more content) are far more substantial than that.  At least with this price increase, 10% of homes would get a considerable benefit, and maybe 30-40% of homes would get a moderate benefit.  I would say that's far more worthwhile than when my monthly remote rental price went up without getting a new remote.

[duncantuna]

I would pay for it a la carte.  If the NFL Network wants to charge $0.70 per subscriber, mark it up and charge me $1.00.

Agreed, but that price quote is far off.

If the NFL wants .70 per subscriber for all subscribers that's multiplied by, say, TWC's ~16 million subscribers or $11m/month.

A la carte, they'd get MAYBE 1 million subscribers, more likely far less.  Now you're talking $12-15/month to get the same revenue.  And how many would keep their subs during the off-season?  

So the big question is .. how much would you be willing to pay each month?  $10?  $20?  $30?

[Jack 1000]

The ridiculous trivial banter and politics associated with the NFL Network, and there quibbles with both Comcast and TWC over rates and what package should it be placed really boil down to one thing. (And I'm not even a football fan.)

The longer the NFL Network refuses to provided service to any cable company, the more revenue they lose and negative PR they get from cable customers who see the NFL Network as unwilling to negotiate.  All the NFL Network is doing is building up a negative PR image when instead of doing that, they could focus on getting a deal together and providing the channel to cable subs who want to see it.

There should be a national letter writing campaign to the NFL Network that basically asks the question:

"What exactly is your station gaining by refusing to provide your service to cable fans who want to see the games?"

Jack

[basshive]

There should be a national letter writing campaign to TWC asking when they are going to stop ramming navigator down peoples throats.

There are cable system customers enjoying NFL Network as well as both dish providers, as well as Uverse and Fios.

[tencom]

There should be a national letter writing campaign to TWC asking when they are going to stop ramming navigator down peoples throats.

There are cable system customers enjoying NFL Network as well as both dish providers, as well as Uverse and Fios.

How much money do you think the NFL needs to survive Each citizen of Wisconsin is paying about 15 dollars a season already not including the NFL channel for the TV rights  and now the greedy NFL wants more revenue By cramming the NFL channel down are throats, when few would voluntarly choose to take the channel.
After all one complaint the NFL channel receives, is poor programming according to the local daily newspaper. We can thank a few providers like TWC willing to stand-up to the greedy NFL, who think they got such a great product that people are willing to spend billions of dollars to satisfy the money appetite of the NFL.

[Jack 1000]

How much money do you think the NFL needs to survive Each citizen of Wisconsin is paying about 15 dollars a season already not including the NFL channel for the TV rights  and now the greedy NFL wants more revenue By cramming the NFL channel down are throats, when few would voluntarily choose to take the channel.
After all one complaint the NFL channel receives, is poor programming according to the local daily newspaper. We can thank a few providers like TWC willing to stand-up to the greedy NFL, who think they got such a great product that people are willing to spend billions of dollars to satisfy the money appetite of the NFL.

Well,

In studying both sides of this debate, I would tend to agree with TWC.  The rates that NFL is demanding for the channel are too high for only eight live season games.  I wonder how far apart they are in negotiations and price?

Jack

[jeffski]

I'm glad we're getting MLB network soon as baseball is my fav.sport  NFL network might want to observe what MLB network has accomplished in a very short time and take notes.

[basshive]

In studying both sides of this debate, I would tend to agree with TWC. The rates that NFL is demanding for the channel are too high for only eight live season games. I wonder how far apart they are in negotiations and price?

If all they ever showed was 8 live games, I would probably agree but they have much much more than just some *games* on the NFL network.  A quick check of the site would reveal the programming available.

It is a good question. How far apart are they really? Unless a TWC executive comes here and speaks or gives exact numbers to the paper it is all speculation about who wants what, who will give what etc.

tencom, I suppose you want me to think TWC is not making any money either right? It is just the greed of the NFL... cmon

[vegasvic]

I cry myself to sleep at night thinking about the big bad NFL trying to take advantage of poor little old TWC.  

[tencom]

I cry myself to sleep at night thinking about the big bad NFL trying to take advantage of poor little old TWC.  

Not TWC! but the subscribers who are paying the the tab.

[Jack 1000]

I'm glad we're getting MLB network soon as baseball is my fav.sport  NFL network might want to observe what MLB network has accomplished in a very short time and take notes.

Excellent post Jeff!

Jack

[klwillis45]

NFL Network is wholly owned by the NFL while MLB Network is owned by MLB, Directv, & the 3 big cablecos.