# Interesting article about NFL vs Cable



## alevine1986 (Jul 10, 2007)

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/29/commentary/sportsbiz/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote

I think it's starting to shape up as D* will be the destination for sports fans and cable for non-sports fans.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Here's a development that seems to be related to the NFL Network debacle.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12152007/business/comcast_suit__nfl_network_in_breach_167667.htm

I don't know anything about the agreement Comcast and the NFL made, but it seems to me the NFL Network is within their rights to tell viewers where they can view the programming without needing to purchase another 'package' (hate that term) to see it.

My brother, who has Comcast, is one of those 'there is no life without football' people. I told hime to call D* when Comcast took the channel away to bundle it into some bogus sports package.

--- CHAS


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

What contract is Comcrap claiming the NFL broke? Does Comcrap carry NFL Network in some areas (but only in extra paid tiers)? I didn't think Comcrap carried NFL Network in any market.

I think the NFL is well within their rights to do what they did, unless there was specific verbiage in whatever contract exists that said that the NFL can't market to Comcrap customers that other options are available to get the channel. I wouldn't think such verbiage would be included, but who knows. Its called capitalism.

I also hope this ad campaign leads throngs of Comcrap customers to their competitors, like D*, E*, FIOS, etc.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Screw the NFL Network! The NFL Network is a specialty sports channel and belongs in a Sports Tier. NBA TV and NHL Network are both in the Sports Tier on most cable systems and there is no reason the NFL Network shouldn't be as well. I hope Comcast sticks to their guns and keeps it in an add on package and I hope Time Warner NEVER adds the NFL Network as a basic channel.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

...and I am so happy that DIRECTV and E* carries it. I hope it never ends up with TWC. I also hope the NFL Network carries a few post season games next year. Comcrap offers it here, but it they moved it to a newly created sports and entertainment package and charge an extra $5/mth for it (It's Comcastic).

Merry Christmas.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> I hope it never ends up with TWC.


Why?


----------



## Billsfan69 (Nov 9, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> Screw the NFL Network! The NFL Network is a specialty sports channel and belongs in a Sports Tier. NBA TV and NHL Network are both in the Sports Tier on most cable systems and there is no reason the NFL Network shouldn't be as well. I hope Comcast sticks to their guns and keeps it in an add on package and I hope Time Warner NEVER adds the NFL Network as a basic channel.


The NHL network is in a basic package on Directv as is the NFL network, so the only network ina sports tier is NBA TV.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I know, I was referring to Time Warner. NHL Network, NBA TV along with The Tennis Channel, CSTV, Fuel and the three FCS channels are included in the Sports Tier for a whole extra $1.95 or free for All In One subscribers. I don't want the NFL Network or anyother channel included in a 'basic' package, which means it will be part of the analog line up and suck up bandwidth. NFL Network can either be included with a normal digital cable subscription, or in the Sports Tier, I really don't care, just as long as it's not in a basic package.


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> Screw the NFL Network! The NFL Network is a specialty sports channel and belongs in a Sports Tier. NBA TV and NHL Network are both in the Sports Tier on most cable systems and there is no reason the NFL Network shouldn't be as well. I hope Comcast sticks to their guns and keeps it in an add on package and I hope Time Warner NEVER adds the NFL Network as a basic channel.


The NFL Network is entitled to both negotiate with distributors and insist that it be carried in any way they see fit. It's not up to the distributors to carry it where they want it if it's under contract (or tryiong to be) to carry it another way.

Also, TWC (and others) are being disingenuous when they say they are only trying to protect their customers. Plain and simple, they're trying to protect their own pocketbooks. If DirecTV and Dish and FIOS can afford to carry NFL Network on their standard tier without raising their rates, does Comcast and TWC think we're idiots to believe that they're only looking out for *us*?

If it's OK with you that TWC never adds NFLN to their offerings, I hope it's also OK with you that they continue to lose customers because of that choice.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Time Warner is looking out for me, indirectly IMO, by keeping new analog channel addition to a minimum. I really don't care about the financials of it, bandwidth is more important to me.



> If it's OK with you that TWC never adds NFLN to their offerings, I hope it's also OK with you that they continue to lose customers because of that choice.


1) No, it's okay NFL Network never gets added as a BASIC channel to me

2) Not carrying the NFL Network is not going to cause Time Warner to lose millions and millions of subscribers, TWX is a mulibillion dollar company, the will survive

3) Why would I care anyways? Unlike some people here, my choice of TV providers isn't the end of be all of my life.

4) Don't kid yourself, Dish, the mighty DirecTV and Verizon are just looking out for there own pocketbooks as well.


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> Time Warner is looking out for me, indirectly IMO, by keeping new analog channel addition to a minimum. I really don't care about the financials of it, bandwidth is more important to me.


I'm sure it's important to TWC as well since they are currently (pre SDC) bandwidth limited. However, the over-riding factor for all businesses is the financial aspects. How they accomplish better profit is up to each company.



Steve Mehs said:


> Why would I care anyways? Unlike some people here, my choice of TV providers isn't the end of be all of my life.


Actually, it sounds like it IS a big deal to you.



Steve Mehs said:


> Don't kid yourself, Dish, the mighty DirecTV and Verizon are just looking out for there own pocketbooks as well.


Never said it wasn't. That's as it should be. However, it is interesting that TWC has chosen to cite a reason (protecting their customers from price increases) for not picking up NFLN that has been proven to be false by several other providers.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Actually, it sounds like it IS a big deal to you.


No, it's not. I will defend what I own and subscribe to when unfairly and unjustly attacked however. I've done that with Dish, done that with DirecTV and will do that with Time Warner. I'm not marred to my provider and can and will point out flaws. Some of you are just too blind to see.

Would I like the NFL Network? Maybe. But what I really want more then anything is for the whole ordeal to be over. I never watched the NFL Network when I had DirecTV, my uncle, poor soul, still has Dish, I'm over there quite a bit, never watched the NFL Network over there for more then a minute or two. The channel doesn't mean that much to me programmingwise. For highlights, I'd rather watch SportsCenter, The Blitz and Primetime then anything on the NFL Network. For actual games, the one this weekend is the only one compelling enough. Thursday and Saturday night games do nothing for me. I start work before 3 in the morning so I can't watch Thursday night games since I'm in bed, and on Saturdays the Sabres usually play. Sabres hockey outranks football games I have no interest in.



> However, it is interesting that TWC has chosen to cite a reason (protecting their customers from price increases) for not picking up NFLN that has been proven to be false by several other providers.


And just how do you know that DirecTV didn't just eat the cost the first few months and incorporated an NFL Network price increase with the following round of price increases? Last year the price of digital cable here on TW Rochester went up $2.35, (or $1.10 for those with Digital Cable and Road Runner), which is on par with Dish and DirecTV, in the past it was never like that. Satellite packages would be raised a buck or two and cable would go up $4 or $5. You can play games like this back and forth all day long, but I very much doubt DirecTV just ate the cost of the NFL Network, and I'm sure as hell Dish didn't.


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> No, it's not. I will defend what I own and subscribe to when unfairly and unjustly attacked however. I've done that with Dish, done that with DirecTV and will do that with Time Warner. I'm not marred to my provider and can and will point out flaws. Some of you are just too blind to see.


Me? Don't know how you'd know (at this point) that I'm blind about anything, but.... OK.



Steve Mehs said:


> And just how do you know that DirecTV didn't just eat the cost the first few months and incorporated an NFL Network price increase with the following round of price increases? Last year the price of digital cable here on TW Rochester went up $2.35, (or $1.10 for those with Digital Cable and Road Runner), which is on par with Dish and DirecTV, in the past it was never like that. Satellite packages would be raised a buck or two and cable would go up $4 or $5. You can play games like this back and forth all day long, but I very much doubt DirecTV just ate the cost of the NFL Network, and I'm sure as hell Dish didn't.


I don't actually know how DirecTV handled the cost it incurred when they added NFLN. What I do know is that they added NFLN without making obvious changes to the rate structure for its customers. I also know that DirecTV has NFLN and its rates are at least equal to TWC's rates in our area. Those two things indicate (to me at least) that it's possible to add NFLN and not charge customers more overall.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> I don't actually know how DirecTV handled the cost it incurred when they added NFLN. What I do know is that they added NFLN without making obvious changes to the rate structure for its customers. I also know that DirecTV has NFLN and its rates are at least equal to TWC's rates in our area. Those two things indicate (to me at leas) that it's possible to add NFLN and not charge customers more overall.


The NFL Network was launched in Fall of 2003 and was added to DirecTV almost immediately. It was added to the base package, Total Choice. As of Spring 2003 Total Choice was $31.99/month, as of Spring 2004 Total Choice was $36.99/month (listed as $39.99 on the website, but that includes locals and I want to keep this as apples to apples as possible, packages w/o locals were $3 cheaper) That's a $5/month price increase.

I went to the web archive and looked at the channel line up from DirecTVs own website and compared the channel line ups from when TC was $32 to a year later when TC was $37.

Other then channels that changed names throughout that period, the difference in the listing are as is:

America's Store 
Mariavision
NASA TV
NFL Network
RFD TV
TV Guide Channel
World Harvest TV

These are the channels added to a package that went up $5 in a years time. Now America's Store was a shopping, so they paid DirecTV for coverage, Maravision, NASA, RFD and WHT were all added as FCC mandated non profit public interest channels, TV Guide Channel was added as part of the lawsuit settlement with Gemstar and the satellite companies. There's inflation and yada yada and everything goes up, but when a package goes up $5 and only one real channel gets added, there really is only one logical conclusion that can be made and that is a good bulk of that $5 increase was to pay for that one channel. And that one channel would be the NFL Network.

While no one except for those who make the decisions know what really goes on, looking at it from a different point of view, logically, DirecTV raised rates and raised them by a good chunk when the NFL Network came aboard. Everything I posted can be verified by yourself by looking at the Internet Way Back Machine. If I felt like it I'd do before and after comparisons price comparisons on the other two packages on DirecTV and Dish Network as well, but the conclusion would be the same. DirecTV ponied up the cash for the NFL Network and passed it on to customers and ultimately raised their rates.


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> The NFL Network was launched in Fall of 2003 and was added to DirecTV almost immediately. It was added to the base package, Total Choice. As of Spring 2003 Total Choice was $31.99/month, as of Spring 2004 Total Choice was $36.99/month (listed as $39.99 on the website, but that includes locals and I want to keep this as apples to apples as possible, packages w/o locals were $3 cheaper) That's a $5/month price increase.
> 
> I went to the web archive and looked at the channel line up from DirecTVs own website and compared the channel line ups from when TC was $32 to a year later when TC was $37.
> 
> ...


Good research Steve. A rate increase due to the addition of NFLN is certainly one of the possible conclusions -- maybe even the most likely one. What it doesn't address is the larger picture that I mentioned in my post. That is, that in spite of having NFLN and (currently) a lot more HD, DirecTv has managed to stay competitive with TWC in our area (upstate NY -- Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse). So, TWC's assertion that adding NFLN will force a price increase is, well -- suspect.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

The problem is 'staying competitive'. DirecTV hasn't managed to stay competitive with Time Warner, Time Warner has become completive with DirecTV. For pricing, DirecTV was the stronger one, TW the weaker.

DirecTVs prices are not too far off of what cable is here now, when comparing equal offerings. The pricing gap in the past has been a lot larger then it is now in favor of satellite. I can only comment on the pricing here, since as you know every Time Warner franchise differs, while competition had a hand in it, Rochester doesn't appear to be a big satellite area. Maybe it's because of how long it was for locals to get added to satellite, but driving around the suburbs of Rochester, there are a lot less dishes then there are here in Buffalo. According to an article I read on the D&Cs website, TW has something like 68% of the pay TV market share in the Rochester area. So it’s not like not increasing prices to the magnitude they used to be increased to was a direct reaction to competition, because Time Warner owns Rochester when it comes to TV, broadband and phone. 

I don’t see how the pricing gap could be closed so much, but that year when DirecTVs Total Choice and Total Choice Plus went up $5 that made things a lot more equal. For the first few years Dish and DirecTV had nothing in the way of price increases. I remember not too long ago when Total Choice was $29.99, now Choice is $49.99, sure locals have been added, but not much else other then shopping, religious and public interest channels and ofcourse inflation and increasing costs and all of that.

You say DirecTV has NFL Network, TW does not and they are on par with each other as far as pricing, I agree, but that’s not how it was and not how it should be traditionally. DirecTV was not just cheaper, they were a hell of a lot cheaper. I’m not putting the full blame on the NFL Network for increasing costs, but I do think they had a lot to do with it and as the channel gets more games, the more value it becomes the more they will want when it comes time for contract renewal.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2007)

HIPAR said:


> I don't know anything about the agreement Comcast and the NFL made, but it seems to me the NFL Network is within their rights to tell viewers where they can view the programming without needing to purchase another 'package' (hate that term) to see it.
> --- CHAS


The NFL wants the channel on the basic tier so that every subscriber on a cable system is forced to pay for it, whether they watch the NFL or not. The cable companies want it on a separate tier so that only those who want it have to pay for it. You don't really think a channel is free just because it's on the basic tier, do you?


----------

